tv Mayors Press Availability SFGTV November 26, 2021 11:00pm-3:01am PST
asking me for money and he wanted to know a bit about my life story and how i got to san francisco and where i currently am today professionally and i talked to him for a fair amount and one of the questions he asked how i ended up making it into san francisco where i grew up and went to school in the south bay and say told him that when i was starting out i was a contractor and intern and on the barack obama campaign and working in a small start up but i wasn't getting paid well skidi had to work and save to make ends meet and i got to a point where i was offered a full-time job but it wasn't paying enough. the only way i could see myself living in the city where i
worked, in a way that would allow me to not have a car and to be a sustainable member of the society that in a close to his job and his community and i cut a deal with my dad and he agreed to buy a place and i agreed to rent to him but that is an exceptional and really privileged frankly story about how you are able to get inter generational health to help you live in this city. the people younger than me and coming up in universities throughout the bay area and the nation now, they can't a forward afford topull it off because wed building housing 30 years ago, we made it illegal to build housing, we need to make it illegal to build housing again and both in my neighborhood and the richmond districts and throughout the own tire tee of the city and so make it possible for people like my younger brother and make it possible again for people like the young
people -- >> that was fast. >> caller: good afternoon, my name is mike chan i'm a resident of directing 2 speaking in support of the legislation. people talk about affordability and i think my story is that you know, there neighborhoods i love in the city like the richmond and places that where you see, right, before the zoning controls came in where you see these neighborhoods that were in the process of this gradual, changing of density and response and stuff got more expensive and people said oh yeah, it is now feasible and is and they say
richmond is a terrible place, no one says that. it's giving other neighborhoods the opportunity to add more housing, become more affordable and provide more opportunities to access jobs and communities and restaurants and stuff that we all want and need to other place this is san francisco and so that's what i think this legislation promises to allow that is not cat a class mick but something gradual over time as people's needs changed and to ge people a lot of flexibility and to really help communities really stay in place and provide more options for people and that is why i think really i like
this legislation and i really hope that you support it. thank you, very much. >> caller: so, i actually live about -- so i used to work in san francisco and i actually live sandwiched between san francisco and silicon valley and i want to register my support for supervisor mandelman propose a it affects san francisco and across the bay, over the hills and over the second set of hills into the central valley. housing price as cross the bay area are being pushed up by san francisco's statistic building housing in san francisco and also i'd like to voice my support for more administerral approval because the discretionary review gives advantages to people with inside knowledge of the city's building codes and the chronicle has a lot of out recently about under
the table elected people who expedite building permits and it will cut out a lot of that layer and it will hopefully get more housing built and at a cheaper price than it is at the moment. thank you. >> caller: hi, i am a lead volunteer with urban environmentalist and i live in ss oceanview neighborhood. we should legalize multi family housing throughout san francisco. one of the best things san francisco can do to support the region climate goals because we have walkable and transit rich areas and the whole region. most climate plans recognize and
only compare the potential for reducing emissions from people already in the city. so, places like san francisco have a climate action superpower if we chose to use it simply by legalizing more multi-family housing in our existing neighborhoods. so, i would urge you all to support this proposal. thank you. >> commissioners, that concludes public comment for these items. public comment is closed and they're both now before you. >> so let me start by saying i am in favor of moving forward today with both items. i do want to thank everyone from the public on both sides who input their comments and ideally
when this does reach the board of supervisors, i highly recommend they take all opinions and interests in mind. let me call on commissioner comr imperial. >> thank you. and thank you for all the comments in both sides from different walks of life about this legislation and i also appreciate supervisor mandelman taking on on this kind of complicated legislation in its self and i do have questions in terms of the rationale or i guess towards the planning staff and also to mr. bentliff. for the four units plus 80 used, how will this fourplexes related
or connected to the local adu program? how is this going to help or what is the rationale on having an adu or having fourplexes plus an adu unit? >> so for planning -- >> thank you i'm happy to take a crack at that if it's a question about intent but i'll let planning fill in any details. i was trying to say that as a matter of the state edu program, that it would be true that edu, i believe it's who in the building not a rear yard structure would be add sod simply commenting as far as i understand it i would continue to be an option on top of four or six units as the case maybe understate law but that this set of ordinances would allow for
development and rear yard with the possible exception of using a 30% rear yard which is what we have in single family districts asper the staff recommendation. >> that would be more towards the staff. in terms of the -- this is the kind of discussion we had to with sb9, i believe commissioner tanner brought that up in terms of how it will affect the local adu program. and you know, we've had many discussions also here in the planning commission in terms of strengthening our local adu program and our local adu program has many protections in terms of the rent control, protection, which is very important and also it adds to the design guidelines as well. i guess that's my question here
is in terms of this legislation and with the planning department, being creative and also all of our discussions here and strengthening the local adu program, especially for me, when i look into this legislation and also to this state law, i mean, the state law is in a way undermined the rent control, you know, one of the general plan objectives of the city and how do we strengthen the rent control ordinance we have here in san francisco. zoo that is like my rationale, my question on that and also for the planning accident staff to look into that on how to --
different types of housing. >> thank you, so there are actually for me the way and and again, i applaud mandelman and the way it's like different in and the issue of the which i feel like is being undermined and we know and doesn't go through rent control and it's more about the there's no doubt cost protection when it against to sb9 and fielding housing and
that is what not one anything i peel like lasting legislation and in a way that rent control and it gives cross protection and another thing too that to me as well as our comments in terms of deeper affordability and also the planning department recommendation in terms of responding to support of housing and and and there are issues of deeper affordability and how do we hear in this legislation also
encourage in a way that and that it looks like to have some sort of incentive or invest in social or supportive housing whether it's or acquisition of preservation and i'm noticing too is that let's say small developers that you know that to have more and from are restrictions in terms, the program has restrictions on the short and on the subdivision and how and affordability and one thing the last thing as we and i
agree with some of the and investment and technical and and and they're going to add another unit or a local adu and so we need to have that kind of incentive for bipoc homeowners and in order for them to know the kinds of assistance or the technicality that they're involved in and one thing too is when it comes to the peak dieting of permits and there are some comments and my initial, you know, reaction or recommendation for that is expedite permits for bipoc
homeowners or for programs that are lead to go supportive or social housing and that is what i like to see in terms of implementation of this program and i would like to hear what other commissioners have to say as well but those are my usual reaction and provide and thank you. >> anybody else? >> commissioner tanner. >> i do have a poor connection today can folks here me all right. i see a nod so please do flag me
if i start to go an intelligible. i want to thank the supervisor and it comments to the work and for their back and fourth and many thousands of on this topic. i want to start by trying to kind of make some comments and i heard from the testimony today and release and a few questions so what i heard in terms of the calls today and for to receive and simple that i think are shared and sometimes can rub against each other and wanting to have home so it's current and future and want to go place and homes using the homes to build and for san france so folks have more stability and more and
families and possibly and i hope it can be true which is lowering the price of housing and it's cheaper and and more than it is now and making sure that we're channeling housing to public goods and through this time of direct value and and or very large homes and ideas and we see supervisor mar's legislation trying to think about how we get to the value into and ultimately how we retain our residents and how do we get people and one thing where i a little bit lost there and it's equity tee in a particular exclusive zoning and i think that to me is a very important starting point which
is to say and the end of zone is a good thing and i think some would say we have allowing allow and a two-unit and adu and on everything and pretty much and in san francisco and so or a question of this legislation and can we do more than just legislation and it's the framing goals i've heard today and i think it's important if those conversations and keeping those goals are this protection and existing own owners and the foundation of this program and any future programs highway do we produce and what hines of homes and so on protection front, i don't know mr. star and ms. maloney if you know if
anyone is aware when it comes to rental registry that was, i believe, legislation was and is there any progress or update known coming when we expect to see that type of registry live and in operation and. >> i'm not very familiar with the exact timeline and the last i've heard is we are still a couple of years out and having this goal completed rental registration with we don't have that and it would have been feel to add some and legislation but unfortunately, change is coming before. >> that's happens even with sb9 and we don't have our rental
registertation and that supervisor mandelman is involved and with that project and give it some ump and i don't know where that is. >> certainly commissioner tanner and we did the supervisor fewer's housing inventory and these late last year and it's being saved that kind of for this project and that scale of project. it was around 18 months i want to say mid next year and it will be the final traunch being brought into the temperature and it is underway and by the rent board and my recollection is that it does overlap somewhat with the timeline that they were talking about this legislation. >> that's encouraging and i having that be hand and glove with this legislation and how that is so that we have what was
the history of the space and what went on and right no that and it's a version and it does go through and before having and they havely say on staffing and on our city and they to be working together. and that is really is a person or several people and i know we already work well with them but i want to elevate that to a very specific and very needed use of our city resources so that's a comment for later. one thing i was trying to understand in relation to kind of the protection for the homeowners and this is kind of mr. star and ms. maloy is
how you see the different ways that the proposed sb9 local implementation work for local homeowners, maybe you can just walk through that and is out the gate. >> understand that better. >> sure, i think our intention here was to create a path that made it easier for the homeowners what would like to develop the property and continue to live on that property to make it easier through whatever means we have available than it would be for that homeowners to sell to a develop may demolish with the resources so sb9, does have, we borrowed this from sb9 and it has a requirement that in order to utilize the lots at peck of e
you take your single family and and create aid plot or two units and they have a homeowner requirement and you sign an affidavit of intent for three years from construction and also that you been there for years prior. we took a -- evaluation and trying to do anything that we have within our capabilities and to make it easier for that and versus selling to a developer and program. >> and any idea that would be -- in if you have a six plex legislation goes through this is
in addition that this path for the homeowners is allowed. is that the idea, right? >> ok. >> i just want to, there's a lot of good stuff here but i just want to make sure i'm asking all testify and what we can put affidavit of home ownership and and they and life changes and they're not going to live there and you could have people who are trying to and did not intend to live there and if wore finding through maybe our registry that and.
board and with that said it's worth exploring whether or not there's some sort of a targeted change in those regulations where there's a particular sen ar ye that we feel comfortable with such as no tenants being present on the site and perhaps there's something in there so i appreciate this being raised in the conversation now and it's something we're going to certainly have to talk about our colleagues with at the board. >> there's a ledge point with the cu but is that the right leverage point? is it another mechanism. it's a process what is is the leverage we want to get out of our leverage and how can we best get that because to imagine demolition is not needed is not thinking how it goes and not
that that's not what you've done but if we can figure out how we get that leverage in a way that is super owe nerrous and people do play these games well in terms of demolition that end up with problems and issues. so, my last two comments and then i'll turn it back over to the other commissioners to hear what they have to say and this topic of whether or not to r2 i it might undermine sb9 but the thing about r2 i like about us doing and really lifting the floor for all of our housing is that we are allowing everyone to take advantage of that and so sb9 has the very thoughtful restrictions and i think we can layer on our san francisco tenant protections but it means that someone doesn't have to live in that home and say i'm going to do two units and i'm going to build a two units plus
maybe two adu you so it can be a four-unit building. we say what about four units in maybe that's where we're getting additional public benefits and i might throw in the mix is that on the corner lots we do 10 units and we're still having the same height and the yard may need to be a bit smaller but i think that could then give us that up to capturing that value back through a bmr unit and we have the legislation from supervisor martha i think has some complimentary ideas to supervisor legislation and he i would love to fick it out together and have a unified programs to have missing middle density to our city and capture the value that is blocked in the single-family homes into public
benefits and more homes for more people. so i'll just leave my comments there. thank you. >> commissioner fung. >> i will ask for everyone's indulgence as i bring fourth a little bit of history and also in case i become quite long winded in my discussions here. back in the '90s, i brought fourth a propose am for the bayview community to rezone from rh1 to r h2 the intent was for wealth accumulation. we moved the planning commission to the community to discuss this
issue. it was very heavily attended and a lot of people were against it. pros and cons brought fourth and it was a little different than the pros and cons brought fourth today with respect to the equity issues. given that thought, and the fact that the community was heavily opposed to it, i pulled the proposal and it went to play like many other proposals. if one lock at the proposed changes here from a land use issue, we're faced with what's
been brought as issues on the daily basis and not only through the discussions on cus but on drs and on appeals. there's many opinions here in this city, especially with respect to the lower density areas. in my current tenure, on this commission, you know the focus has been housing and it's a constant challenge to look at what's been discussed and what's been brought forward and if you look at the creation of housing, during this period of time, most it has been either large, market
rate project with of course some affordable components to it and there have been some separate affordable projects and the argument could be made that perhaps there's not enough. the other components of course are a lot of the single-family homes we see but we've seen nothing in between. rarely do we see multi plex projects and rarely do we see anything that one looks at terms of needing density. if you look at what's been brought before you has been large projects have a tendency not only to be reflect higher land cost in those areas that
they go up in, and higher construction costs. it let me to think about the technical points to this proposal. if we lock at lower density zones and areas and one could say the land cost there are lower and we're higher density projects and it's likely that the construction costs would be also lower given the building types and the time to complete would also be quite a bit lower in such large projects which in most cases takes four or five
years and the other interesting thing about the lower density areas and smaller projects is that they're more likely to use local vendors which supports our local economy better. given the fact we've had these residential zonings with tweaks, minor tweaks to it for substantial length of time, i think it's time that we try something different. i'm prepared to support the corner lot legislation. i would say a couple of things though, i think that perhaps we
should wait a little bit on the all lots proposal. if everyone remembers how the adu program was brought forward, and everyone thought it was going to be the panacea of creating new homes, new units, remember that the first couple of years nothing happened. it didn't gain traction for years so we should monitor if this program gets asked here or implemented at the board and becomes law, we should carefully monitor it and look at where potential improvements and changes will occur the same way that the adu program does that.
on a minor point, i'm not supportive of staff's recommendation of proportional tie. planning codes should be qualitative. these curious metrics show up in our codes and i don't think that they do much. i'm done. >> thank you, commissioner fung. commissioner diamond. >> thank you, first of all, thanks to commissioner mandelman's office for taking on this complex set of issues and to staff for providing an incredible amount of contextual
backgrounds and very thoughtful for modifications that might solve additional issues and concerns that we've seen over the last couple of years as modifiers to the proposed legislation. i want to start off by saying i'm also deeply appreciative of the various points of view and perspectives that were raised by the many, many callers that we had today and the many, many letters that we received. they are all clearly very thoughtful and some at different advantage points and perspectives in terms of what this legislation is supposed to accomplish or could accomplish. it's a lot to bite off all at once and i will say that i am generally supportive of both of
the ordinances proposed by supervisor mandelman's office as modified by staff and i do have a few concerns and questions that i wanted to discuss but first of want to put fourth why i'm generally supportive of this regime that's being proposed. we have a whole new world coming january 1st as pointed out by staff and sb9 is designed to increase the density on single family lots. i believe the proposals that are in front of us accomplish that increase in density that do so in a way that targets some of the issues that we see on the west side of the city. address the missing middle housing which is a really, really important subject to take on and allow for the
preservation of some modicom of spaces where he devoted the end of a letter to talking about the importance of open space as we increase density and that we need to be concerned about coming up with a balance between requiring too much open space, backyards, rear yards, that reduce the ability to increase density and against providing too little open space which effects the liveability of the union that we're building and i believe the that the ordinances proposed by supervisor mandelman as modified by city staff allow us to get to that balance and i think that's a really wise step to be taken. secondly, i am also really
pleased to see that the staff's proposal creates incentives to actually construct the housing and it's fine to legislation for housing and rezoning to rh2 but we don't build the house and we have not accomplished the most important goal and a number of speak ears pointed out they need to be weary having too many requirements because it will get in the way of homeowners actually expanding or constructing and i believe that staff's proposal strikes a good balance about at least how to initially propose this problem so that we are encouraging people to actually construct additional housing. and i am very supportive of the desire to produce objective standards so that project sponsors know exactly what it is that they have to propose in order to simplify this process.
those are all really important subjects. i too, like commissioner fung, am weary of the proportionality requirement. i haven't -- i'm not comfortable that 50% for one of units is the right answer and i don't believe that is central to the core mission of the ordinance and the modifications and so i would prefer that that piece of it is not there at this time. before i get into more detail, i did want to ask staff a couple questions. first is, we have an example in front of us of a project that's been highly controversial and in front of us again later in this agenda, the 17th street project. so, could staff explain whether that project, as currently proposed, which basically has
added the adu to the existing building and does a lot of substandards lots and completely builds out both of those lots so there's really no setback. would that be permitted by either supervisor mandelman's ordinances or by the staff modifications? i just think it's helpful to have a real world example so we can understand. >> it's in any neighborhood so i've been paying attention to it. we require a 30% setback on new construction so it wouldn't be new coverage and you would have to have afour-foot- setback on the old one so there would be some space between the buildings
and that's the amount with the number of units in total on corner lots to six so you could have three and three or four and two and you couldn't have more than that. >> are you saying if i understand correctly is if you don't a split you are limited to two after the split? >> that's correct. you have a 30% setback on and on the existing lots and the result of us. is that right? >> ok. >> that's very helpful. i am wonderful about the possibility of including a monitoring clause, like a mandatory review of this is after a set number of years and
so we can see where propose asking working and is it resulting in more units and if this is, that's great and the number we have large arena goal that we have to accomplish and if it's not, you know, what is getting in the way? what about the ordinances that we put in place as modified by staff and it's actually the stumbling block that is precluding us from having the goal accomplished that we thought we would. you know, i know it's right to say you can't manage it without measuring it but without actually knowing whether this ordinance is working, how do we determine whether or not we've include the right set of controls and i know a lot of thought has gone into it right now, to figure out both from supervisor mandelman's office and staff, as to what is the right selection of problems we're trying to solve here and unless it actually produces the units and someone said, then it
didn't really get us where we wanted and i feel like it would be important to have a built in mechanism that after a set number of years, we examine that exact issue and so we can see whether or not any tinkering is necessary. this is a big, complex problem and we're unlikely to get it right the first time. we certainly, i think, should be taking stock of what we've accomplished to figure out what might need amending and how do you feel about that? >> thank you, commissioner dime opened. i wouldn't have any issues with that being included in the recommendations and i think it's a really a matter between the commission and the department to have how you ex kite that but it's the number 6 cases of legislation and something that could be helpful information so we would really defer to you and
your staff. >> i think that's a good idea and i think one of the key aspects that you talked about there is we can relax the zoning and we're nowhere better than we were with we started so it's important to refine this and make sure what we're allowing is feasible and resulting in more units so i. >> i was going to chime in and echo the same thing, right. hopefully we see additional units being produced by this but i think, this doesn't prohibit in these areas that may be so, you know, it's something that we should be doing anyway and certainly we would welcome a recommendation for us to come back in three years to analyze that. >> thank you. so, i would say that in general,
this package of legislation doesn't solve all of our problems but it does seem like it is focused on addressing the missing middle problem and i think that we have spent a lot of time talking about it and this is a good opportunity to try to accomplish something on the west side of the city in particular with missing no housing so i said at the beginning of my comments, it is an important piece of the puzzle and i think it should be part of the package. thank you. >> commissioner chan. >> thank you. so thank you supervisor mandelman's office for bringing this forward to the planning department for your analysis to the public for your testimony and to my fellow commissioners for all of your really
thoughtful comments. i wanted to start with just a couple of questions. the first is for minister gensler in terms of timeline. given that sb9 goes into effect january 1st, i'm curious how you are thinking about the time lines for the ordinance and when they could be in place? >> yeah, thank you, commissioner chan and it's nice to see you back on the virtual desk. yeah, this out there since february and various iterations and it's been continued to allow for staff analysis to occur. we've had change in the state law along the way and we're here today appreciating this conversation and also the staff recommendations and we would like to have this at the lapped landsuse committee in january wh what i'm sure is a significant number of changes, as i alluded to earlier, based on these recommendation and this discussion but that is our ideal timeline. >> some time in january.
find a way to be discussed further deeper the discussion as equally important i want to thank the public and everybody who contributed . those who called in but also those who float and i want to thank each and every commissioner who remained glued to the screen of my meeting here to hear whateverybody else had to say .
we come to the conclusion of the legislation as it is and i am in support of staff recommendation and i and in support of bringing every other point approached by the audience as well as our commissioners to be considered as a legislative part of our board moving forward to deepen the conversation. i am very interested in the aspects of creating more diversification in housing types which is also touched on by this thoughtful letter brought up by commissioner diamond who i had hoped read this entire letter into the record we also madea very important point about open
space , a consideration about which i think supervisor mandelman's legislation distinguishes itself from sb nine offers . and i want to call out something that also really matters. i was very moved by commissioner fung recalling his efforts in 1990 and no reception for nowwhat would be a much easier discussion to be had . that said i believe that we may have to create a few additional bridges or tools for which people start to better understand the centrality of what is implied in housing types of which we do not have many examples in the city and that is the multiplex as proposed here to be potentially
afour plex , essentially a six plex and what that really can mean on large cuts which in the san francisco language of planning makes it a little bit more difficult to create creative and good examples. i was looking for legislation and therefore that is valid criticism but it makes me want to suggest that there's somebody who would spend some time on letting people know how amazing four plex's and even six plex is can be because you cannot really distinguish them on single-family homes if they are properly designed. the reason i'm saying that is at southern california has a much larger number of housing types which really would be
examples of prototypes we should look at. i actually participated in an aia wide lecture months ago which talked exactly about that subject matter and i saw a number of really interesting building types which were well-designed, actually bills and architects spoke to the challenges but alsothe benefits of this housing type .my idea is to suggest that perhaps there should be a design competition. either one which has a small reward or one that is a pro bono exercise which means learning institutions like the cca or the architecture school of cal berkeley or perhaps even an aia sponsor group who would really compete for creating
some of these prototypes and creating really an encroachment that these types of units are innovative and possible. as was pointed out and i do have to say it does southern california lecture we were pointing out san francisco is a little bit more difficult. there's the 25 foot with, typical for a residential lot and it makes it a little bit harderto do this . i still would like to use creative momentum on this legislation to also ask for some typical answers that can be immediately shown to encourage and propel this particular piece of legislation and get started with vigor and again, i'm in full support and don't know if there's anybody else who wants tomake a comment .
>> president: commissioner diamond. >> i had one additional question for staff and i will try a motion. a sixth unit onthe corner, does that trigger the state density ? >> that's a great question, thank you commissioner. the exemption is a exemption from density versus the change and clear that any of the units you're going to count towards your minimum should qualify our units that are potentially entitled. that's why we're resultingto and are h2 but even in an rh three district , where you could have six units on a corner lot is the exception, that exception being its
explicitly stating you are not allowed to combine that with any density bonus program. class i don't know how the other commissioners will respond but to move this along the dry emotion which is that i would move the recommend the board that they consider adoption of the two ordinances proposed by supervisor mandelman as modified by staff. plus we send along a list of additional commentsthat the commissioners made . i think each of the commissioners might want to weigh in but there are a number of substantive suggestions and concerns that were raised and i wouldn't want those to be lost simply because we were passing alongrecommendations . i don't know if it's important to list all of those concerns now andmake sure we haveto . i think it probably is . i didn't keep a complete list. i know from my perspective that
the ones that i took note of that thought were worthy of mentioning work supervisor chance concerned about enforceability of the owner occupancy clause. a concern i raised about monitoring of requirements for monitoring and a check in afte three years that whether or not 50 percent should be appropriate proportionality requirement . supervisor moore's desire for sketches so that we could understand what this might actually look like and the concerns about affordability and whether or not we should be amending this in any way to address the affordability concerns. you know, i will say that it's balanced to some extent by my worry about whether it will
actually reduce the likelihood of people wanting to take advantage of the ordinance by constructing we put too many requirements in place but i think it deserves exploration and i apologize to the other commissioners, i wasn't taking notes on everything as itwent along but i wonder if any other people wanted to add to that list assuming the commissioners even wanted to go forward with this item . >> i will second that and call on commissionerimperial you are up next, i'm sorry . >> thank you somuch. commissionerdiamond , i think what you're asking for is excellent . however since legislative aide pamphlets has been listening the entire four hours, knowing how detailed oriented he is i assume that if we ask him to capture the essence of what we have said that that could be
generically made aspart of a motion . if you're correct there were more very important comments made including your own observation initiated by the office about the open space. i think if he's still here perhaps he could reinforce that the have the subtlety of what was saidand i fully agree , it should really in its entirety be brought to the ongoing discussionto the board of supervisors . >> are you still here?that you could kind of a firm for us that you would bewilling to take us forward . >> unfortunately commissioner more i don't see him onthe
call. hold on, he has just returned . and let me unmute him. >> sorry about that. commissioner i switched to my phone due to a technical glitch but yes, i was thinking and taking copious notes throughout including the public comments. can you hear me weston mark i'm happy to provide legislative a stenographer services in consultation with staff who i'm sure alsowere taking very good notes . oh yes, as i said at the beginning i think not only what was in the staff report is very much the basis of what we need to move forward but a lot of what we discussed today as well so i do appreciate allof you and i agree with you commissioner moore . it was one of the most exciting four hours we have spent here together and i'm happy to get on paper.
>> commissioner diamond, are you comfortable with him taking responsibility because it would make a motion easier and perhaps more tactful. >> yes i am. >> if you made the motion and wantedto restate it i would be happy to support it . >> i know that we recommend to the board ofsupervisors supervisor mandelman's ordinances as modified . >> second. >> president: commissioner imperial. i'm withdrawing my right in vote. >> president: commissioner tanner. >> i would only say for myself i support all the other commissioners comments they've made and the way they've made them and with the proportionality i think there is need for it. i do think that going out that metric is important so i'm happy to hear that i think we have to live like mindedness on
the commission so i hope i would say that other commissioners comments reflect my own feelings as well so i think we have a lot of maybe not total unanimity but we are going in the same direction and i hope it's that way with the board of supervisors. >> president: anything else or were you chiming in for mister bentley? >> i would never presume to speak for him but i don't need to see anymore, thank you. >> president: director hill. >> i wanted to thank you all for the thoughtful comments and your recommendations. commissioner moore, we should talk more about design constitution which i think was extremely successful. and i wanted to thank the team has been working on this and obviouslysupervisor mandelman for bringing this forward and taking the leadership on this issue .
we see every week at the planning commission and thank jacob for all his work but that our staff obviously audrey and those of you who have worked tremendously on this. but it's been a team effort throughout our entire staff citywide to current planning and those working on the housing element to put in the recommendations before you. i wanted to say thanks. >> president: if there's nothing further i think there's a motion that has to be seconded to approve the proposed amendments with staff modifications. and additional comments by commissioners can be carried forward to the board. on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote]
>> president: that motion passes unanimously 7 to 0. commissioners that will place us on item 12 for the waterfront plan update. this is an informational item and i'm prepared to make a presentation . >> yes i am. >> good afternoon president koppel and commissioners. i've been appointed as an informational item on the waterfront plan update. as you probably know the wonderful plan is a principal vision document that guides land use element along the san francisco waterfront properties that are under the jurisdiction
of the san francisco court. we are bringing you this presentation today in anticipation of the publication of the draft eir that will come out next coming few weeks. planning staff has been and will continue to work with staff on related general plan amendments to ensure that the general plan is aligned with the new waterfront plan update. i'm now going to hand it over to diane at the port staffwho will provide you with a presentation . >> good afternoon. diane oshima. let me bring up if i'm going to be successful atbringing up my presentation here .okay. so matt, do you think you can give me a leg up here somehow weston mark or i am. it didn'tactivate until just
now . thank you. okay. you see this? >> yes. >> you can. >> president: we do you might want to blow it up . >> i'm sorry, this is not my forte. hold on one second here. where is the full screen. i meant to get the other version. i'm having a little moment here where's the full screen ? okay. >> i'm going to ask if i can
take upyour assistance here to make sure that i don't delay you any further . it's quite ahearing . >> i'm going to make mystaff be present or . >> thank you very much, i appreciateit . president koppel and planning commissioners and fellow staff people at the planning department and the public eye and diane oshima board of san francisco and thank you very much for taking our presentation after such an incredible. i just sat through that for hours. that was quite a hearing . we've been working for a long time toyou on the waterfront plan . next slide please. i'll give you a quick background and history on the plan. the waterfront plan is actually the product of a ballot measure approved by san francisco voters in 1990, proposition h and the plan was approved in 1997 following a lengthy public
process with the waterfront plan advisory board. proposition h required the creation of a waterfront land use plan to defineacceptable uses , land uses for the waterfront with a priority on diverse maritime industries that are still in san francisc . it's preemptively defined compels as an acceptable uses for peers and gave the port the responsibility of working with the public to identify what are acceptable uses for the years commission expandedthe scope to include acceptable uses for all of itsproperties . and approved it in 1997 . at the time the embarcadero was coming down. the transportation improvements were going along the embarcadero so the public at an
interest in creating a diverse urban waterfront so the plan's vision was to reunite san francisco with its waterfront . and the policy there were really intended on promoting land uses and an urban design instead of principles thatwould support that . through this process we have been working with the planning department and commission staff through that entire time wherein there were general plan amendments and planning code amendments made in that 1997 plan along with the 1997 plan that were approved by the planning commission and the board of supervisors in 1998 . most of the policy changes rain the waterfront and city together. that legwork was done back in 1998 but significantly, we
established a city waterfront design review process through amendments to the planning code at that time, creating a waterfront design committee and we are very grateful and happy to recognize vice president koppel for her long many years of service on the waterfront design committee that have been instrumental in revealing the developmentprojects that have taken place . next slide please . fast-forward to 2016. by that time the port we did a comprehensive review of what has happened. all the changes that have taken place along thewaterfront since 1998 . and decided the port commission decided it was time for a comprehensive review of the waterfront plan with the public to take a refresh and look at where we've come so far, where do we want to go? we created another significant public process and a waterfront
plan working group which was headed by former chief administrative officer rudy now concurred and janice lee the bikecoalition and now our board member . they led a very in-depth process to assess what are those changes that have happened since the waterfront plan was approved? what are the things they liked, what are the things that needed further attentionand from that , they came up with a broad range of issues through 160 unanimously approved recommendations on how the waterfront plan should be updated. which we were all endorsed and supported by the commission and became the foundation then for the update to the waterfront plan itself. because of the breadth of the issues that the working group developed which went beyond
just finding acceptable land uses for the waterfront, we dropped, we revived the title so that it's just simple waterfront plan and the next slide will give you a taste of the scope of the policies that are now proposed tobe updated in theplan . next slide please . so again, we've got a broader goal and policy framework in thewaterfront plan now . it's still on hold and affirms the proposition horiginal priority for maritime uses . it's a key element of reports waterfront but withthat , again supporting a diverse mix of activities. of economic, commercial, recreational, entertainment open space and natural habitat type uses which actually can be sponsored along the 7 and a
half miles of waterfront that the port controls from fisherman's wharf down to india basin . there were already urban design and open space and historic preservation guidelines that were in the plan . the old plan, they've been revamped andupdated further for thoserecommendations . but in terms of new goals and policies , clearly waterfront resiliency overall and climate change has been front of mind and a lot of these discussions and with that, equity and inclusion. how do we try to make sure that the waterfront improvements and investments going forward are really going to be serving everybody from disadvantaged communities, residents , workers and not just san francisco but the bay area region andthe state . the recommendations also opened up public access policies to
really the importance and need for a connected public access and open space network along the entire 7 and a half mile, particularly in the southern waterfront or china basin down to india basin which had not reallyreceived much investments previously for open space . andsimilarly , the transportation access and public realm improvements that go along with that to promote alternative transportation. more pedestrian and bike safety improvements that integrate withthat open-space system on the waterfront . there was a lot of discussion about the financial requirements and feasibility requirements in order to support successful waterfront improvements and capital repairs.
and next slide please. again, going a little deeper into the sustainability thread of the plan, there are new goals and policies on both resilience and sustainability. there was active discussion through the planning process. it was a three year endeavor about the embarcadero seawall which we are working very closely with your staff on adaptation planning for the city and port to be integrated together. with the embarcadero but also for flood control and sea level rise adaptation for the southernwaterfront as well . the southern waterfront offers particularly natural habitat. a lot of bay ecology, opportunities for improvements which are called out in the sustainability and environmental policies and
goals.and all this is really in sync with the value of creating healthy neighborhoods, addressing environmental justice concerns in the southern waterfront to incorporate new sustainability practices and values that have been identified over thelast 20 years . in fact, the goals and policies in this waterfront plan update do a lot of focus on recognizing city policies with respect to greenbuilding , biodiversity, transit first and other environmental initiatives that san francisco has advanced and is actively recognizing by folding them intothe update and the waterfront plan . we are also in the resilience context much more aware and focused on the disaster
response functions that the waterfront and the port provide to the city and region overall. and incorporate that into the adaptation resilience planning policies as well . the court itself as a waterfront resilience program that many of you have heard is underway . that's pursuing the more deeper technical work and deep dive that will ultimately identify flood control and seismic improvements for the seawall. the public values that have been identified through the resilience and sustainability discussion are really important feeders to help support the waterfront resilience program and the planning department on resilienceinitiatives along the eastern side of the city . finally next slide.i wanted
to spend a few minutes on these historic piers along the embarcadero. this is a natural historic district, embarcadero historic district and whether we're in the context of talking through resiliencediscussions, architectural landuse , success of the ferry building , exploratory and, piers 1 through 5, the working group recommendation affirms the importance of trying to make the investments that we can in these precious historic piers while we can.there's a recognition of changing needs on a resilience adaptation also a recognition thatthere's still an investment window to support rehabilitation for these peers
. and some new policies in the waterfront plan update are intended to increase the certainty and success of bringing a few more of those fears and opening them up to the public . similarly down in the southern waterfront there are new policiesrecognizing the pierce 70 historic district . i know the planning commission was heavily involvedwith us and pierce 70 restrict and those are recognized in the plan itself through all our historic preservation work : pacifically asked policies and the need for consistency andupholding the secretary of interior standards . next slide please . these policies, these goals and policies are innine different sections of the plan . but then they apply port wine. the waterfront plan identifies these five graphic areas as well from fisherman's wharf down through the northeast
waterfront including the ferry building, south beach, mission bay at the southern waterfront from pierce 70 down to india basin where those goals and policies port wide are tailored into objectives that are described for each of thesefive areas . we took a refresh of that. made some updates to those objectivesas well as part of this effort . next slide please . and finally there is a new goal and policies targeted specifically at community engagement and partnerships . we go nowhere along the waterfront unless the public understands what the imperative is and why we're doing what we're doing and where there's an opportunity for the waterfrontprojects to carry forward these public needs and objectives . there are new goals andpolicies that our community engagement
procedures . processes and procedures for how requests for proposals for new developments and leases will be publicly vetted and carried before the port commission . as we know i think asked ourselves but amongst departments the importance of these government agency partnerships especially now in light of the resources hopefully we will be seeing through the infrastructure federal infrastructure bills that have just been signed really integrating our interdepartmental objectives and priorities toadvance improvements along the waterfront . and the port has also standing advisory committees in the northern waterfront and southern waterfront and those are recognized with procedures and engagements on how to keep those discussions rich and current and critical so that we
are on top of what are the needs of the community and city at large and the improvements going forward. and finally as these photos represent the eco-center, where the port is managing these kinds of public areas on its own we cannot do it alone. so really reaching out beyond inner agencies to the community at large to be able to engage in hands-on programs and help to fundamental of the improvementof the waterfront . there are policiesthat recognize that . so next slide please. that was sort of a real rush on the content update of the waterfront plan. we have been working with the environmental planning group team led by sherry george and
george everett at the eir and we're hoping that mightbe published in december . while we are working on that, some tweaks and not huge but there are some aligning amendments that we are working onso that the general plan and waterfront plan continue to stay in sync . we also want to work with matt on planning code amendments so that waterfront design process that currently only applies in the northern waterfront is actually brought down and applied to review major non-maritime development for the southern waterfront south of china-based likely through the northern waterfront. the mission walk and pierce 70 projects however have their own design review process is now so this new waterfront design
process that we're suggesting for the southern waterfront would not apply to those suv areas. and we really appreciate just the ongoing collaboration and partnership all of your staff. we have a long history of working with the planning department and we look forward to working further on that. to bring you to any eir and a set of a general plan code amendments that will be before you for approval sometime next yearso with that , i think that wraps it up. and i'm happy totake questions and thank you very much again for your support . class back to diane. if thereare immediate questions . we should open apublic comment. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission . you will each receive two minutes. when you hear your line has been unneeded that's your indication.
>> i'm waiting for the canvas store so i guessit's not up yet . >> you need to press start againwhen the item is up . seeing no request to speak, public comment on this matter disclosed . it isnow before you . >> commissioner. >> without conflict of interest i'd like to have a shout out for diane for an incredible leadership and the work she presented today. how she participated in the northern waterfront review process.
prior to even stepping on the planning commission. i've seen the incredible depth of work, the incredible dedication of the fabulous staff and meetings were just a exciting as what we had earlier today .and while those meetings were are primarily focused on the northern waterfront, the amount of work is that has gone into every aspect. the smallest aspect of creating this beautiful waterfront we have is basically do to what i am presenting today. i am excited about the strong emerging of board planning staff with the strength of city planning staff totake us forward . and in a time of increasing the environmental challenge for th safety and survival of our waterfront .achieving even
more hands on will only not only help us to sustain and protect the waterfront but also bring it forward with all challenges that waterfront across the world are facing. we will be dealing with sea level rise and how can we maintain exciting beautiful design waterfront that are indeed the large public open space resources that make san francisco special and again, each time i walk down the waterfront which i can safely say i am delighted of the high quality and the way this holds up and even in the years of coping still is absolutely a magnificent place. thank you diane and i look forward to continuing to participate in thedialogue . >> thank you commissioner. >> unless there are, there's one. always one.
>> just making sure you're paying attention. i know that you have a tough night because we have a packed agenda and we had just our second item but i don't want to diminish the value of the work and expert presentations and all the many hours that led into your presenting to us so this is tremendous and i hope the limited comments are more reflection of thetop quality of itthat are lack of interest . you said it all very well and is quiteexciting and i'm looking forward to what comes next . >> thank you very much commissioner tanner . >> i hesitated there. there areno other questions from members of the commission . we can move on. two items 13. 14 a, and 14b for case number
2017 . emb cua for the property of woolsey's street. commissioners first we will considerthe certification of environmental impact board . to amend the adoption of finding and conditional use authorization. please note the public hearing on the draft eir is proposed and the public comment ended august 9, 2021. public comments will be received however comments submitted today may not be submitted in the final eir. >> thank you. i'll show my screen.
certification of the final environmental impact report or final eir for the proposed project as accurate and objective and as having been prepared an environment in accordance with the environmentalquality act . i will now provide a brief overview of the project and its inclusion in the final eir and review process. the project is to point to a car lot and it is bordered by wayland street to the north and fulton street to the east, and birdland street to the west. until 1990 the project was used for agricultural purposes. 18 unused greenhouses and associated agricultural structures were still located on the day . the proposed project is demolished most of the existing structures and constructs 62 residential dwelling units
inside 31 duplexes the number 35 feet in height. the proposed project will include the two vehicle parking spaces,bicycle parking industry case improvements. and 12 on-site affordable housing units . the proposed project would include approximately 11,220 square feet of common open space and a .39 acre publicly accessible open space. for the proposed public accessible open space the project proposes to rebuild two of the 18 greenhouses and a boiler house. from the existing building materials on the site. potential programming for that is could include an open lawn seating area. the final eir included by the project would include result in unavoidable impactson historical architecture . this is because the project is individually eligible for listing in the california
register for historic spaces under criteria one four association of the agricultural element of the flotilla neighborhood and the italian-american community. there'salso eligible under criteria three with a rare macular small-scale family operation . the final eir is 27 wolseley retain significant integrity such that is able to communicate its significance as a nursery. 770 wolseley is a historic street. the final eir concluded the demolition of the resources on the site and our proposed new construction would result in a substantial average change the significance and historic resources on the project base and that impact would be significant. the final identified the measures to reduce its impact. the first documentation of the historical resources. second implementation of a plan
third permanent display of intensive materials and for the retention of the existing growth plan . while these mitigation measure would include the project impacts on historic resources those impacts would remain significant . additionally the final eir concluded impacts on resources and noise air-quality and biological resources would be significant for mitigated to a lesser degree. all other impacts in the proposed project would beless significant and almost resulted in no impact . the final eir analyzed three alternatives including the no project alternative and would be no changes to the project site. under the full preservation alternative the project site would be developed with approximately 24 dwelling units, 24 vehicle parking spaces, 1.45 acresof publicly
accessible open space . 11 of the 18 greenhouses would be retained compared to two of the proposed project . the publicly accessible open space would be potentially programs in a managed care similar to the project. all this would alter the historic resources in place of the defining features for new construction and the resources would remain evident. the division alternative would not result in a significant impact to resources and no historic resource identification is required. all the other mitigation measures would be less significant levelsfor the proposed project for this alternative . the partial preservation alternative would result in 40 dwelling units, 40 parking spaces and .9 acres of open space. under this alternative six of the 18 greenhouses would be retained compared to 200 at the
proposed project. this would result in an adverse impact on the site unless it would result in significant impact. for that reason the same historic resource mitigation measures would result in a super bowl project and is not affordable. the partial preservation alternative would require the same mitigation measures as the proposed project which impacts significant levels. the preservation alternative would be to prevent in a manner similar to that resistance project . the department solicited and incorporated public comment on the environmental analysis rather than the review process for 77048. this slide presents key dates in that process on august 26, 2020 the planning
department issued a notice of preparation of the draft eir and availability for initial project . there were comments on the initial study were taken from office 26 2020 through september 25. comments were addressed in the draft eir which is published june 23 2021. a public hearing on the draft eir falls on july 29 and the public comment period concluded august 9, 2021. on november 5 the planning department published a and distributed a small comment on the draft eir. the planning department retained the final eir for the wolseley street project in accordance with after 31 and in defense of the administrative center . and thedepartment policies . the final eir is adequate and provides decision-makers and the public with information required tounderstand the potentialenvironmental impact of the project . it's alternatives and
mitigation measures. on this space the planning department staff request the planning commission about the eir certification . promotion does not approve the project but insteadsolidifies the eir complies and is adequate accurate and objective . this concludes the presentation of theeir certificationand i'll be available for questions . i can turn it over to my colleagues . good afternoon presidents and commissioners, planning department staff. thank you for this project description and i will only ad the following condition details .under the inclusionary affordable housing program on-site affordable housing 20 percent or 12 of the units below market rateswould be provided for on-site ownership . this includes the minimum of a 10 percent or six of the units being available to low income
households. five percent or three of the units affordable to moderate income households and the remaining five percent three units affordable tomiddle incomehouses as defined by the planning code . the procedures manual .93 class i and 12 class to icicle parking spaces will be provided as part of your transportation demand management plan . the project would also add a new sidewalk along wayland street and fill in existing trench to create a new 10 foot wide sidewalk along bozeman street. the existing sidewalks on hamilton and woolsey streets would be replaced and for new sidewalk well that's one in each corner of the sitewill be constructed . a total of approximately 33 street trees would be provided along the perimeter . two par share spaces would be located on hamilton street near the proposed publicly
accessible space. the project under the pud is requesting modifications through this conditional use authorization. for all box with of less than 25 feet. there yards of less than 25 percent of lot depth. street frontage for garage door with larger than one third the length of the ground floor and car share for not providing one on-site space. however as i mentioned they will be providing two off-site spaces near the publicly accessible land. the department has received no correspondence for the conditional use authorization regarding the proposed project. however we are aware of outreach efforts for the project as mediated by supervisor ronan's office.
the project sponsor also has conducted community meeting and has been working with community groups throughout the process. at this time i like to mention for the record that i emailed the planning commissioners an updated version of the motion to address in the draft motion . the following is a summary of actions that the commission must consider for the project. is the adoption of the findings under ceqa including findings rejecting alternatives as feasible and adopting a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring and recording program .second, the approval of the conditional use authorization or a planned unit development pursuant to planning code action 209.123 and 204 for the new construction of a 31 residential building with a total of 62dwelling units , 62 off street parking spaces , 93 last one and 12 class to bicycle parking spaces and the
publicly accessible open space. basis for our recommendation. the department recommends approval and we have found that the project is on balance consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan and that will maximize the use of a currently underdeveloped lot and construct new residential units within close proximity to public transportation commercial corridors and jobs. it will also provide additional family size units to the city's housing stock on a suitable development lot. and contribute to these affordable housing as onset ownership. the development is compatible with five height and architectural characteristics and land use of the immediate residential neighborhood which
is our h1. the project is going to substantially improve the public right of ways surrounding the site as described. with new sidewalks and streetscape improvements. and the addition of that publicly accessible community openspace. the department finds its project to be necessary , desirable , compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods and to not be detrimental to persons for adjacent properties in this space that concludes my presentation . i'm available for questions. thank you. >> thank you kimberly. there we go. mister town are youprepared to make a presentation . >> you are very faint on my end anyway. not much better. but i'll give you five minutes.
>>. [inaudible] >> president: are you on your phone as well? let me try to find your phone number. >> we've got you now. we can hear you loud and clear. >> don't start my five-minute clock yet. >> thank you commissioners, thank you president, thank you vice presidentmore . listenersmy name is eric , principal on the project . i'm happy to bring this project before you.here before the commission many times. all my projects have been high density multi family where we are building a lot of fields,
one plus bedrooms and very excited to bring to you our first family oriented family size project, a single-family home and townhome at this location here in the port 11 district which is you can see on themap most of you are familiar with it . next slide please kimberly. our original plan was to maximize the slides to provide homes with yards, rear yards and single san francisco development with some unit a back unit to changemanagement of these long boxes . needless to say even though it was consistent with the neighborhood brand and the zoning we got assistance for both who are committed to try and preserve the history of the site and the neighborhood with the existing past uses of the greenhouses so next slide please kimberly. we came up with a publicly accessible open space we are
contributing from our land that we are going to include a greenhouse. some plant infestations and historical references to talk about the historical significance of the site as used as a industry and we have the garibaldi family supporting it. and we thought this was going to be the scheme that was going to be acceptable to the community but the community wanted to have more authentic and more replicas that were to the scale of theexisting greenhouses . next slide. this is 10 percent of our site that we had given up and conveyed. our next iteration is working with the community and different stakeholders. we almost doubled the amount of open space we are committing to the public and in this case we are replicating to greenhouses
and a boiler house to scale. and providing additional public open space and while we're still squeezing in units to try to maximize housing and createa livable environment of family size dwelling units . next slide please. thank you. this is an aerial view of the site as it's currently designe . with the replica greenhouses and boiler room to thebottom left as you can see. publicly accessible open space . which we hope this is something that's been supported by the community and we've been working with them. as well as homes that are appropriate to the neighborhood. i want to take it over to mark. >> thank you eric. thank youcommissioners . my name is mark and i'm with
scott architecture.with this slide looking overall wehad serious challenges on-site and various limitations . we wanted to integrate into the neighborhood and community while maximizing family size homes and ensuring appropriate open space which exceeds the requirements in addition to the 17,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space as said by eric. we wanted to develop a sign design that is specific and in deference to the history of the site . that starts with site circulation. the port left in the garden district has an annual event which is a tour of various private and public gardens in
the neighborhood and we thought what better way to organize the building through by a series of connected breeze ways that could be open and closed at the homeowners discretion passing through the various private courtyards and culminating in a central spine are what we called a muse that served as an amenity and circulation and also follows the same path of the steam pipe system that has previously been used to distribute light tothe greenhouse. next slide please .here with the landscaping you see the lattice portion of the site would be at the park at the bottom left of the page . at the highest of the opposite corner. the new is wider at the left side of the page and features playgrounds and areas and as the music becomes steeper towards the right of the page it is narrower andessentially
becomes a circulation path . >> i'm going to interrupt you because you're five minutes are up. we should go to public comment commissioners may have additional questions this is a opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressingáthree . seeing no requests to speak, public comment isclosed . this matter is now before you. >> president: i don't have additional questions, i think the eir is adequate. commissioner moore. >> and support. it's an extremely exciting project.
to see another two minutes of the presentation because i thinkit's an important point to understand the unity of the important sites . but if everybody agrees we can getthe presenter 2 more minutes . >> thank you so much. i just wanted to also add with this here that the building has potentially the setbacks on the sidewalk but also negotiate a deeper driveway as we get to thehigher elevations. next slide please .this is just aquick overview of the various unit types . we have traditional slats shown in the red and orange.
>> here is across-section of the site so you can see how it negotiates thetopography . the top through the muse and down through walton street . here's a couple of pictures showing the amenities shared between the tenants. lastly to the left there's a street frontage diagram where we are showing we want to prioritize the experience or kind of flaring out the entry and reducing the drive file and this will create this great site line through the building to the private courtyards as the yard passerby on the sidewalk. next slideplease . i just want to touch lastly a
couple of other items that were key to the design. we wanted to reference the continuous gable of the greenhouses so we used that as kind of a system to organize the roof line. next slide please. and here are a couple of views of the homes in relation to the greenhouse andboiler house . showing a common thread of this work material across the home. and administration consistent with theneighborhood compact . i'll conclude it there. >> thank you guys for the extra time.>> commissioner moore did you havemore comments ? >> i just appreciated this presentation. it's a sensitive design project
and it makes us realize this is not just putting small units on the side but the subtlety i which that occurs. it's something we can learn about and reflect back on what we spent a lotof time on today . it is the individual subtle shift in units and slight variation in the entry experience. it was all just said and i appreciate the extra timing and i am in full support of the project as you just summarize . >> thank you very much. >> commissioner chan. >> i want to agree with commissioner moore and i had a question for staff.if you could talk about the structure of the public open space, what's the nature in terms of how that would be maintained
over time or if it would be privately owned or separately conveyed as public open space. if you could help us know more about that, how that will be maintained as publicly central. >> commissioner, i think the project sponsor is best to answerwhat they've agreed to with that community . >> did you want to add your thoughts? >> how speak briefly on it and i'd like to ask nick who understands the structure a little better. i think he could give us a clearer picture but generally we areworking with the friends at 770 wolseley , a group that's been part of this neighborhood for many years with deep ties and
understanding of historical uses and our hope is that once this is completed they will take over and manage the space to continue to produce interactive activities, events, education and historical education about the site and its uses. , do you have anything to add tothat ? >> thank you commissioner tanner and roosevelt. i can direct you to approval 32 and 33 in the motion. the intention here from the project staff is to provide assurance that there's a baseline of care that would be managed either by a nonprofit organization or essentially by the ho a of the property. so i think it's particularly in item 33 will see a list of items about hours ofoperation ,
standards for cleanliness. those are things that strike a very good balance of providing assurance to the city and commission that it would be a public open space and would be kept up to a reasonable standard of clean conditioning and good use for the city. >> i appreciate that. that's my question and i'm happy to supportthis project . >> president: is that a motion? >> why don't we go ahead and say that. commissioner dimond had a question. >> president: no problem. >> i want to follow up on commissioner tanner's question about maintenance. are you saying that h away would be, could potentially be obligated to pay for it so it's through ho a dues, individual homeowners will be assessed or paying for the upkeep ofthe space ?
>> that is essentially correct. the space would be privately owned i guess it's analogous to a situation where it would be a privately owned but publicly accessible space. yes, in this scenario the site is not sold to a 501(c)(3) organization that would be owned and operated out right. it would be held by the ho a that would cover those costs. >> is there a disclosure to future homeownersthat this would be part of their dues when they purchased the house ? >> yes. >> and that can't be amended by the homeowners association? this easy and ours or whatever documents you've got that ensure that future homeowners
associations don't have the ability to amend or delete the requirement? >> that's correct and i direct you to item 33 in the conditions of approval which would be recorded against title for the property aspart of the approval and would be on the building permits would be on the assessors record . i think there's assurance ther . >> question for the city attorney, has that all been reviewed by thecity attorney's office and you're comfortable it's enforceable going forward ? >> sorry commissioners. ihave not personally reviewed it . i have not worked on this project prior to the hearing. i'm sorry. the enforceability of this issue ... [coughing] give me one second.
>> maybe it's a question for city staff if you've used this format before. are you comfortable that this is enforceable? i see mister gray showed up so maybe he can weighin on this . >> happy to a pine on this. deputy director of current planning. for our purposes we are considering this obviously publicly accessible space so it's something that i think we included a motion relative to the conditionaluse. the maintenance and private agreement that happens in terms of land is something we don't typically weigh in on in terms of the future maintenance of the specificpiece relative to who owns the property in future
. >> let me ask and enforcement question then. do you monitor or who monitors over time , is this maintained to the standard that has been set and who doyou bring these enforcement actions against if it's not. >> since it's part of the larger development , for example if we found that this space was not being used for what was approved in the entitlement we would bring it against the ho a or whomever the entity is that basically manages the larger development so in those instances. >> is not be used,the level of maintenance . >> do we monitor for maintenance? how does this work can years from now? as to whether or not it's been really maintained what enforcementpower you have ? >> we have conditions i think kimberly, correct me if i'm wrong that we included in the motion typically upon the
maintenance of for example close in this case. since we're all authorizing th open space , there we go. we can basically enforce it paste on these so for example there's a maintenance center that says the project sponsor shall operate , manage and maintain this space in a clean and safe manner. so we're able to enforceupdate based on these actions . i see the zoning master has chimed in so we can likely any teacher enforcement actions. >> this gives you the power to bring this again to the ho a if they are again the ones responsible. >> that eveningcommissioners, corey t . i'm not familiar with the exact details of this case but generally speaking when there are public open space requirements of the code whether they be maintenance requirements in thecode or
maintenance conditions as part of the conditions of approval , those layout the minimum requirements for maintenance unless there are specific conditions of approval added on top of that as a specific monitoringand recording apparatus in the future , then that's enforced through compliance . we do active monitoring and enforcing unlessthat was adopted that way . but in the future if there was a complaint and it was not being maintained to the specifications either in the code for condition ofapproval that is something we can enforce on the property owner . >> and in this case it would be the ho a. thank you very much. i have no other questions. >> i would make a motion to the eir to move forwardwith staff recommendation .
>> the sql findings and staff recommendation . >> i recommend we take up this item separately. prior to going into an environmental finding that for traditional youth authorizatio . >> i will make a motion to certify the environmental acumen. >> second. >> on that motion then to certify the environmentalimpact . [roll call vote] >> so moved commissioners, that item passes unanimously. >> i will make a motion to move theconditional use authorization of the project . >> cqua first i think. >> sorry, about the cqua
findings. >> for clarity this motion is to adopt central findings and to approve the initial use authorization with conditions. on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] >> that will place us on item 16. as item 15 for 430 gilman street continued to january 13. item 16 case number 2019 0276 the next. this is a large project authorization. staff are you prepared to make a presentation. >> thanks jonah.>> i'll be
making you the presenterright now . >> senior down's planning department staff. item before you is a large project authorization going into 329 to allow new constructionrater than 50,000 feet in the center soma . the project will utilize these state law and request the waivers for concessions from the development standards. the proposed project includes demolition to 15,600 73 square feet off the cdr building and the new construction of a nine story mixed-use building with approximately 80,500 square feet of residential use for a total of 121 units and 500 and 5745 square feet of pdr on the ground floor. the project will provide 107 eight class to icicle spaces
and parking spaceswill be proposed . in terms of the affordable housing 18 dwelling units are to be proposedas affordable units on site , 10 of which are provided at the 250 percent api to qualify for a 30 percent bonus to incentives and concessions . the additional 35 percent is obtained by providing dwelling unit exposure. reducing use of the open space and pdr replacements. increasing the lot coverage, the total height of the building and the size of bay windows. as far as penetrating the plan the project also seeks incentive and possessions from requirements to give construction cost. the project will only provide approximately 52,800 square feet of code compliant project open space and 12,660 square
feet of noncompliant open-space even though the project is seeking a usable open-space waiver under the state law, the project sponsor voluntarily provides an additional 1800 square feet of open space on-site as shown in the memo which is distributed to the commission today. in terms of public comment so far the department has received three public correspondence expressing support for the project. a neighborhood reapplication meeting was held virtually in april 2020 and we will follow up with additional phone call meetings. the project has been in communication with soma on the proposal. additionally the project sponsor is working with 598 brennan street on coordination of construction and design.
in summary the department design is on balance and consistent with the soma area plan and addresses the general plan. although the project proposed demolition of existing pdr buildings the project will provide partial replacement on the ground floor and a substantial amount of newrental housing including new bmr units for rent . and a mixed-use area that's close to this location which is a golf quality. lastly before i turn it over to the sponsor team separate from the consideration of the project itself has prepared an alternative format for the planning code compliance section of the motion which is included exhibit by the very end of the commission packet. we would like to get some feedback from the commissioners about the new tableland. the goal is to provide the commission of the public was
sufficient information on planning codecompliance and fair and easy to read format. this concludes staff presentation and i'm available for any questions . the sponsor team is here and has prepared presentation. >>project sponsor youhave five minutes .>> i was wondering if we could get the presentation up . >> one second. >> then i can get started. john kaplan here with unison on behalf of the project sponsor and the project proposes a 941 20 unit residential building with rounds still pdr. the project is well located along brennan adjacent to the park blocks the site office project and back on the street. the project takes advantage of the state density bonus program with waivers and expenses increasing the housing density at the site and will contribute towards the overall housing production of a central soma plan and heconsideration by the planning commission and board of supervisors .
i'd like to now introduce mark skolnik off to present the project design and the significantmovements in our next slide . >> hellocommissioners. my name is mark skolnik off . i'll start with a site location here. as noted our site is located on a midblock parcel with three parcels on brandon.a site of this proportion on the block could be challenged for natural light but we're fortunate that this site to have a neighboring post being developed as a part of the neighboring 598brennan illustrated here. next slide please . in response to that development and rather than a typical solid property line wall we sought to treat the hope of adjacent fagade as a primary fagade. it's the setback above the first floor that further increases the available natura light . next slide please . the building's fagade sits on the windows of the neighboring
590 while introducing a layerof windows and private balconies . some thought to use the bay windows in such a way that it was connected across the building to create this high relief fagade and treatment next slide please. looking towards the project towards fifth street we carry the two-story order of the adjacent pdr building across our building and carry the bay windoworder of 2 to 3 vertically so we can treat the interior property line fagade as well . next slide please. here's a look back from the parks and the provost towards ourbuilding . nextslide please . the ground floor which consists primarily of a pdr program uses outflows to demarcate the entryways and while we've demarcated the building across the provost we can further activate the posts.
next floor please or next slid . there's a typical residential floor primarily of two-bedroom andstudio units next slide please .as we travel up the building, next slide . so up here these units also take advantage of a mezzanine so they have lofted mezzanines above. next slide please. so here's the loft space and private terraces that makeup the present perimeter of the building . next slide please. here as you see we alluded to we have the additional 1800 square feet of common open-space on masses rescan. that concludes our overall presentation here. i have an additional slide
sections and elevations if questions should arise so please not as know if you have additional questions . >>thank you if that concludes thepresentation we should open it up to public comment .this is your opportunity to address the commission on thisitem . by pressingáthree. see no request to speak for members of the public public comment is closed . you have two minutes. >> caller: this is mrs. lester and i have a coupleobservations . one is this site was written up in the 40s about a week ago as deceptive and i want to remit it as deceptive. the resolution as proposed for adoption on page 4 describes the building next door as though the tenant of this building is still standing. it was demolished months ago and they've also eliminated the tennis facilities at all so there are no community
facilities right now. because developers of that building is wanting to kind of relocate or do something different so the basic facility for the community is a nonexistent next door. additionally what was pointed out, it was kind of humorous in the article in 48 hills was there is a very long rolling. right next to the building and the developer made a big thing about this is not a really good site for a pdr but at the same time the photo shows there's this moving.right next to it. so people are very interested in developing a lot of state density bonus projects and i don't think this is a good one. thank you.
>> president: thank you. that's all for public comment. seeing no additional requestto speak public comment is closed and this item is before you, commissioners . >> commissioner diamond, you are first. >> i have a couple questions for staff and the project sponsor. i'm glad to see you added the common open-space on the roof that people who don't have private terraces have access to on-site open-space.but your project design raises two questions. for me, the first is to have the popos next door been developed or is that project under construction? >> thank you commissioner diamond. i know that is sponsor tishman's buyer is moving
towards permits what i think is the farthest along in terms of all the sites but they have not started construction yet >> so from staff perspective , we are proving a project where the project sponsor is saying it's designed to be fronting on the open-space and taking advantage of the light provided by the popos next door but we don't know forsure that's actually going to be , is that correct ? >> my understanding is that there is already a building permit application filed for the 598 brennan street even though we have not studied the constructions . >> commissioner and if you don't mind the building has been demoed at 598 brennan so the site is great at this point in terms of consideration of light and air. >> i don't know if that's a concern to the other
commissioners . it feels like when we are approving a project that's dependent on an adjacent development and that is likely but not guaranteedto go forward , how that affects our thinking ofthis project so i love the other commissioners to weigh in on this . it's been demoed so at least there's light and air there but certainly not the development yet and the second question is so your mezzanine. is it only accessible by stairs, not later, is that accurate?>> this is mark again.the mezzanine is accessible by stairs with any unit. the roof deck above would be accessible by stairs and an elevator. >> staff have explained previously to me that you're proposing this to be a mezzanine rather than a new floor because of certain
building code requirements? i wonder if you could go into detail about that and where the discussions stand with the building department around tha . >> i'd be happy to. there is a distinction between midrise, lowrise construction and high-rise and that distinction is theoccupied floor cannot be about 75 feet . so the distinction there is it's between occupied floors versus a mezzanine which is considered a level and roof deck and with a ladder theroof deck and mezzanine are considered an extension of the occupied floor below . therefore as long as they meet the size constraintsrelative to the occupied floor below , they can be occupied at a higher level. so that's the building code referencing. >> that would put you in which
level of construction rather than? >> just not a high-rise. >> had there been discussing with the building department. and they signed off on this. they obviously haven'tapproved your plansyet have you had discussions with them . staff, have you had discussions with the building department about proceeding in this direction ? >> yes, we've met with both the building department and planning department. >> staff have you been part of those conversations and are yo comfortable the building department conceptually is fine with this approach ? >> understanding is that the project sponsor has met with dbi with a pre-application meeting . generally dbi will honor the discussions and meetings and determine this would be a midrise construction.
either way it's the mezzanine level. >> and if they don't sign off on it then what happens to the project? does it come back in front of usbecause it requires a redesigned ? >> the mezzanine level if the total amount on the mezzanine level is less than 10 percent , of the total flow area it does not need to come back to the commission because we typically the trigger is 10 percent down and five percent so if the reductions of residential flow area is less than 10 percent in theory that does not need to comeback to the commission . >> does it affect any, this is the density bonus so if the reduction even might be if it's less than 10 percent but if it affects the number of units is that something that would come in front of us? >> the mezzanine level is part of the residential units even there is no mezzanine level the
unit count willstill stay the same . >> i'm interested to hear what the other commissioners haveto say . >> commissioner more. commissioner more. >> so sorry. i was muted. 598 brennan and all that we have in the site i have to believe thatproject is moving forward given the size of the developers behind it . i would be more interested in hearing an alternative plan from the project with alexandria on the club side
with what ms. hester pointed out. i alsounderstood from 48 hills article that that project has been abandoned . we all knew about it and what is planned in blue of itbecause it does affect this project . and staff or i wonder if mister kaplan has comments on that. >> i do represent alexandraon the tennis club project . site permits have been filed to construct the project but just to eliminate the below grade tennis facility so the project is viewed from above grade will not change and like i said, site permits are being pursued right now. so similar type situation to tishman. it's a major project, lots of money and investigation is
going into these site permits so there's no indication that's not on track. >> reminds myself and the commissioner the tennis club is onepart of the public component but there's another facility component that will remain , is that correct? >> that project provides multiple community benefits and includes an aerospace parcel to which m.o.h. will bedeveloping 100 percent affordable housing project . it includes a public recreational facility which includes a public pool . all as the construction of the linear park on the street frontage on that. those three components of the project remain despite the removalof the tennis club . >> i think that's important to understand that there framing the public infrastructure surrounding the project in front of us is indeed being
pursued because i believe the project that's in front of us is a very elegant, interesting building. i unfortunately ask myself that this project as an extraordinary amount of exceptions. and commitments both giving up things that are normally extremely important, can we only achieve goodprojects that have that many exceptions ? my second question is to mister kaplan. i was concerned that the pdr ground floor height was lowered because pdr on its own in order for it to be successful at least to attract the market by which certain pdr can happen will slow us by 2 and ahalf feet . and additionally in the mezzanine portion of where i have questions or ask the
question, do we need the mezzanine and that of her unit there because it makes it a more valuable unit to the architect that and could you and mister kaplan address that. >> because the mezzanine is the hope above the threshold it actually functions independently of the floors below and what we wanted to do was increase the floor to ceiling up to i believe 86 just to distribute those few inches to have a more residential floor working its way up to the building. that's really the driver is to distribute i think 2 and a half feet amongst the seven floors
above. but the mezzanine would be independent. >> could you also speak to the viability of the pdr height as creating a realistic environment for pdr users to come in and describe the use if you knowwhat they may be . >> this is colin with project sponsor. we have a lot of different construction sites but even though we usually don't have the pdr if we do a concrete retention slab we can still maintain close to 12 clear on the ground floor which is equivalent to what the project ended up with. it often has 2 to 3 feet in depth of field so we believe we can still maintain a quality
ceiling height even at those heights and we needed to reduce it to get a good quality access. >> i appreciate that explanation and in summary i think it's been an extremely elegant building. i think it's simple and i wish we would see more of that quality. i am in support of it and i'd like to make a motion to approve those conditions. >> president: second and let me call on commissioner imperial. >> i have a question to the planning staff. can you explain the overlay between the central soma and the sally district? i understand this project is for state and city and there's
a waiver for the pdr replacement. can you explain in terms of if this is not seeking for state density what is the overlay between the central soma district. >> just for clarification. the project is located at m ug so it's mixed-use general district rather than the sally district so based on all the studies of the project if it's a fully compliant project it does not use the density bonus. it would generate about eight to nine units while bonus program the project will generate 120 unitswith a 35 percent bonus . >> in terms of the pdr replacement what would that entail the central soma? >> the project will require to
provide more pdr replacements on-site compared to the current proposal and let me pull up the numbers how muchyou are required . >> president: i had pulled up. in m ug for pdr replacement you're required to provide five where feet of pdr each use. in sally it would be one square foot of pdr for each square foot of use posed for conversion so sally has a higher burden than typically the m ug's in the district. >> i guess this is an m ug and sally and central soma. >> president: it's in m ug and central soma so sally is a different zoning district. >> maybe i could clarify that the project site was zoned sally before the rezoning and therefore by the pdr
replacement requirement requires a one-to-one replacement of the pdr use on-site. so if the project is not seeking a density bonus then you are required to replace full pdr on-site which is about 15,672 square feet of pdr use. currently the project is providing let me see. about 6000 square feet, 5745 square feet of pdr on-site to about 37 percent of replacemen . however the project is seeking a waiver of the statedensity bonus program to provide less
pdr replacements on-site . >> i do have concerns and understand that the project sponsor is seeking state density and central soma is something that is has heavily been laid in terms of the planning process or integration of central soma but there is part of me that is wondering in terms of weave such a strong central soma suvs that the project sponsor is still seeking density and central soma already has requirements for height and egress of height and bulk and there are limitations. there are many land usage requirements but it's something that was taken in consideration and part of it to of this central soma discussion was the pdr and to something that i find it concerning in terms of
the pdr replacements. it's just 37 percent. and that is something that in the soma area production and replacement of the pdr's were heavily used at the top of that there's a lot of concessions that are being asked of this when central soma already has a lot of also discussionsthat we are putting into place . i do not support the large project authorization for this project because again central soma has controls that i think the centralsponsors are able to achieve here . that would be my only comment. >> president: commissioner che
. >> thank you president koppel. i am having trouble supporting this project for several reasons, one of them mentioned by the commissioner. first ada and 120 units don't need dwelling unit exposure so you don't look out onto a public street or a space with a minimum of 25 feet. i think that's the vastmajority of the spaces are around 300, 400 square feet . this idea is kind of a shoebox environmentgives me concerns about the quality of life for the occupants . i think in addition the general state policy and central soma plan is to preserve pdr's places. asking for awaiver provides this 37 percent is not sufficient . and also because it's rendering the lower ceilings which therefore could make it less attractive for actual pdr tenants to move in and make use
of the space so it's even the quality of the pdr i don't think is sufficient. i think the most concerning aspect for me is the idea of a waiver for the ground floor height so as not to trigger the high-rise construction so it's my understanding as what we just heard that threshold is basically less occupied floors no more than 75 feet and currently the last occupier is at 75 feet so that's just really close to me so the idea of having a nine story building without sprinklers or life 80 standards is pretty terrifying so ipersonally think i can vote yes on this . >> president: commissioner tanner. >> i find myself i think between commissioner moore and
her compliments to the building design and where commissioner imperial and chan are in terms of some of the challenges that i see . i want to get the project sponsor an opportunity to tryto help make me comfortable with what's being proposed . can you walk me through specifically what is preventing you from providing pdr replacements at the required amount? why are you seeking not to provide that level of pdr see ? >> thank you commissioner tanner. i think acouple of us have some thoughts. to correct that last statement because this building is not a high-rise it will still need sprinklers . it will be a sprinkler building. number two pdr. as we all know pdr space and new construction is challenging outside of the ground floor. if we go above the ground floor are taking away residential units and it's also not great
pdr space. you need big space that's trucks and other vehicles can access equally . same goes for the basement. we work on projects where we see pdr in the basement as well but it's not great. not a cut of light in the spaces. so it's challenging to provide pdr in a new construction project beyond maxing out what's available on the ground floor so that's what we've done is maxed it out on the ground floor but for access to the residential units above and those types of things. >> i'll the dwelling unit exposure: first and i like to talk to the high-rise comments. >> so i just want to say in the pdr essentially you put as much pdr as you can in a place where it will besuccessful which is
the basement and ground floor which is does not equal the amount of pdr in the space today so that's the summary that you stated . okay. so the exposure. i think the thing with the exposure coupled with the i guess i feel more comfortable with the adjacent projects coming and the kind of relationship between this building, the other building becoming open space but help me with the exposure piece because i'm very concerned and i don't know if you have images of those units or something you can show us to help me understand how far below the required exposure theseunits will have with a significant number of units that have the reduced exposure . >> of course. i don't know if the slide is available showing the street view the idea is we could internalizethe courtyard to achieve dwelling unit exposure . >> are the slides available? i don't know if you know a number of the slide you could go to. >> six, would be the seventh
slide. so you might recollect from the planning that the two beds are on the freeland and brandon frontages so along the popos is where the studios are located. but with that popos i think is about 40 feet and then with the addition of our setback, it's really closer to 50 feet for the amount of light those studios get. you'll see a portion of the building 598 that gets close to our building that's cantilever which is a great architectural moment the units adjacent to that are two beds so if you look at the planning those two beds have street frontages to brandon. so that's kind of any close portion and otherwise our goal is really to respond urban is
thickly to the conditions that are there and not internalize all the natural light so we thought this was a good way to activate the popos as well. by locating the unitsand taking advantage of the natural light . >> in terms of the standard of how much light they're supposed to have just how would you rate the quality of the exposure they are receiving compared to i don't know if you cantalk about that. >> it is approximately a 50 right of way street . and of course there's small streets in san francisco with 30, 35 feet or at least which still produce polity natural light so we think this would be a really generous amount of natural light with 50 feet wet. >> the other comment, does anyone haveanything to add on that ? >> the high-rise thing. >> i add my comments so you can
address that at the same time which is i think where it gets me nervous is getting right up to the line. obviously lines are made a reason, above the line is out so what ends up sounding like his don't want to kick into this other part of construction that we want to have all these things in here but we also don't want to do the big zoning so we're doing it this way . and it feels likejust be what you are. the high-rise or on the rise . if we can't do what you want to do andyou can't do what you want to do instead of just trying to be right there telling that line . and just that's what it comes across as. >> i get that. i think one way to put it is just what is involved in high-rise construction and how that is relative to this parce
. of course we're trying to maximize residential square footage and with the parcel of this proportion if you're doing high-rise construction and you need the pressurized stairs and the vestibule leading to the stairs and then the added cord and so on the floor plan starts to become more core than residential square footage which is the paradox that were trying to kind of work within the constraints of this site so we thought that there's some diagrams in our full commission that demonstrates what a high-rise would look like and how much residential square footage you end up submitting. so it's not only the cost of the transition to high-rise but it's also the lack of efficiency and quality for the units themselves. >> commissioner tanner this is the project sponsor. some of the concerns with high-rise is that we are almost
there but not quite there is that it would have no difference in its construction than any other building in san francisco that's not 85 feet. it's the same. the reason we're trying to stay out of high-rise is because it does trigger a different type of construction but we don't want to do that because that's what it would do to the building. by the building code are lights, safety and everything isthe exact same as every other 85 foot building . the only reason high-rise is mentioned isbecause if we stay out of high-rise construction , we can increase our density at the rear of the building. >> maybe question to mister sucre. we heard a bit about the adjacentproject . it seems like it's movingahead . i just do wonder what if something happens and somehow the project does not go forward
as designed and we've approved this project thinking about it contextually which i think is good planning practice. but then could that change? could it be so severe it changes theexposure of the building or other things like that that we are considering . i don't know if you see any concerns with that or you feel like no, there is sufficient protections in place such that icould feel comfortable supporting it . help me if there's anything you canoffer . >> happy to provide some advice. i think in this case the adjacent development i think is pretty presumed to move forward obviously given the commitments that project sponsor has made relative to for example land projections with the city. they kind of obligate them in terms of construction of park and otherthings related to that larger project . i would say i think the issue
that might the project might have relative to this one is one thing that we could potentially look at is that if there is some kind of major redesign and especially given the commission discussion on this particular project, we can circle back if there's some kind of major redesign that happens in the future and make sure the commission as another opportunity to review this particular project if something was a change in the future with the adjacent one. it is hard to put a condition of approval to that effect given that realistically right now the existing setting is kind of a vacant lot. i think that would be a little challenged quite honestly i would feel pretty comfortable in terms of this project and given what the commissioners have expressed to date making sure that you have assurances from staff that we would bring back any kind of major project in the future or we could
potentially add conditions that affect somewhere in themotion . >> i will see if other commissionersare as concerned as i am . did you want to offer somethin ? >> thank you commissioner tanner and the only thing i was going to add is if the adjacent approved project at 598 brandon were to propose significant exterior revisions, that project generally subject to the extent where talking about having impact that you're referring to with that mid block open space as being proposed would beused to some degree to help with exposure here . those changes at that level are generally required to come back to the planning commission. planning commission motions the standard is to have a commission that states that if there's any minor revisions
those can be approved by the zoning administrator but if they are significant modifications to the project that does require it to come back to the planning commission for your review and approval so i think the type of change that you were referring to potentially happening would be an adjacent project and in all likelihood if that was proposed would be required to come back . >> that's great. one thing the project sponsor for staff, i don't know if commissioners tanner and imperial i can give you a perspective but i feel more comfortable with this project. thank you. >>. >> president: commissioner moore. >> i wanted to add an additionalcomment on exposure . i think that all the time because of exemptions from exposure we have to originally but what ultimately matters is the unit designed for which modifications are being asked for.
we also need to kind of take into consideration that this building has no south exposure so the southern sun will come on both sides of the units that are asking for anexemption on exposure . and i should are you comfortable that the width of the street will allow sufficient light also by code definition the exposure requirements do not match. another thing i would say is that i'm more concerned at such a very high and building where i would be concerned that should for whatever reason the quality of this building will be toned down because of the walls being cross engineeredout of it . this building itself offers a lot. any kind of changes because of cost would potentially impact
approval. that is a question we have to consider each time that we're approving a high-end project and i would hope that this project can be delivered as in the quality and special elements as we are approving it today. i want to say that once because that is something we need to consider approving and again, i still support the project and hope that will not happen in the future. >> okay commissioners. i don't know if there is additionaldeliberation. i believe there was a motion to approve the item with recommendations . hearing nothing further i'll call that question onthe motion to approve . chair tanner. [roll call vote]
>> was there amotion made? i didn't hear one . >> president: commissioner koppel seconded it. [roll call vote] >> president: so moved, that motionpasses . 4 to 2. with commissioners cha and imperial voting against . >> i think staff has developed their table. i find tables helpful i don't know if other commissioners found it helpful as well. >> this is a trajectory that staff has been moving forward.
i know he has worked very difficult on this project trying to make that section of your case reports andmotion clearer and easier to read . and if we don't hear objection ithink we will be of the thing that moving forward . thank you. i think that silence is an indication of approval. so thank you commissioner for that reminder . >> thank you commissioners. >> that will place us on item 17 or case number 2019 item 005907c 51 washington street. this is a conditional use authorization andstaff are you prepared to make your presentation ?>> yes i am. >> the evening, i'm kevin guy with staff. the item before you is a
request for conditional use authorization for a property at 1151 washington street between taylor andmason street . the project proposes a rear addition to the existing 350,000 square-foot dwelling unit at the basement first and second floors as well as a partially enclosedroof deck reaching 40 feet resulting in an approximately 5200 square-foot residents . in order to approve this project the commission must allow the alteration of existing in a manner that does not maximize the density and that would increase the size of the existing unit rater than 2000 square feet. this project is subject to the controls of interim legislation which give effective january 2021. these apply to residential projects whether rtm or zoning. the legislation seeks to maximize residential density and avoid the creation of larger units that are inherently less affordable. the controls require
conditional use authorization for new construction or substantial alteration of residential buildings that is not maximize density allowed in the zoning districtbut conditional use authorization also is required for any project that creates a dwelling unit or expand existing unit larger than 2000 square feet . the project is located in an area primarily characterized by multifamilyresidential as appropriate for higher density and underlying zoning would permit the units without taking up code requirements . the neighborhood is walkable and is also in-transit shopping and parks and is well-suited to the type of higher density development prioritized by the interim controls the size of the existing single-family dwelling is substantially larger than the 2000 square-foot national . and the project would significantly expand that unit to over 5000 square feet . such larger units are inherently less affordable and complicate the ability of the
property to facilitate additional use so the project does not fulfill the intent of the interim controls and does not meet affordability issues subject to these controls and many other recentlegislative efforts at the state and local level therefore staff is recommending this approval of the requested conditional use . i'm available to answer any questions. >> president: thank you mister guy, project sponsor . are you with us? project sponsor. >> yes i'm here. i was told my presentation was going to belimited, is that still the case ? >> everyone's presentation is limited. yours is limited to five minutes.
>> i want to breeze through the first five slides in the interest of time . slide one is up onthe board now . gives you anoverview . slideto please . is the site plan showing the single-family homes to the left and the betty holmes rec center to the right. slide three please. that's your first level existing and proposed. slidefour please . slide four is your existing second-level and proposed secondlevel. slide five please . shows you the existing third level proposed third level and proposed rooftop deck. slide six please. and i wanted to talk about the compatibility factor of the neighborhood here .this slide is an overage of google earth
view of the davis residents and its surrounding neighbors. you can see the davis residents is an enclave and single-family homes. the davis residents was still at 1940. the house directly next door is built in 1951 and the two houses to the rear 1157 and 1155 werebuilt in 1954. according to his fellow all three of these neighboring residents have always been single-family homes . also according to cello the homes are 335 square feet 193 square feet and 2863 square feet respectively. it's important to note these figures reflect conditioned habitable floor areas. they currently have 1257 square feet of conditioned floor area with 147 the of proposed conditioned floor area making the total square footage 3304
square feet after the project is completed. i want to give you a partial chronology of the davis application and every of 2019 in april we were asked to notify the neighbors for meetings. in july we were asked to provide a geotech report. in october he receiveda plan check letter from planning . october 2019 to december 10 during that time the designer view process takes place. two of the three neighbors initially opposed the project. after compromise and negotiation between the davises and their neighbors the dr's were dropped and the davis were told they could enter into the building permit process. we then started the engineering process and plan to submit to the building department. sometime in january 2021 we were told about the internal legislation that had been
passed and we would be required to obtain a conditional use permit. in orderto move the project forward . in march march to april 2021 it should be noted during this time it was extremelydifficult to get answers from our planner . some questions were left unanswered. we considered adding an edu to the project order to gain favor with the planning department and having not heard back we declined the adu. may 2021 we eventually heard back from the planning department and began the cdu process. we received radiosilence on and off throughout the entire process . kevin guy who has been tasked with the process as responded to our emails his responses have only come over thelast month or two .kevin told us the adu would not count towards
increasing density and with furthermore require a variance so we dropped the proposal. november 10 we received a letter from kevin letting us know the project would not be supported by the planning department and medication asking this presentation be sent in by the 15th. executive summary response, i'm going to read what kevin just read. department finds the project is not on balance consistent with theobjective policiesof the general plan and is does not fulfill the intent of the interim controls . our response is i would like to refer to the chronology of the events planning approval was granted september 10, 2020 and the interim controls were not made aware to us until january the following year . the project is located within an area primarily characterized by the multi family residential development that is suited for higher density but the response is as i pointed out thedavis
resident sits with on an enclave of single-family residence . the site size of the single-family residence is already substantially larger than the 2000 square-foot threshold set by the interim controls and the project significantly extends to over 5000 square feet. it should be noted these numbersseem like we're proposing a mansion on this property . >> that is your time, your presentation time. commissioners may have additional questions but my look at things that might happen sooner rather than later. members of the public this is your opportunity to address the commission on this item by pressingáthree. seeing no requests to speak public comment is closed. this item is now before you commissioners.
>> commissioner diamond. >> is there no grandfathering inthe interim legislation ? >> there is not grandfathering commissioner . >> and i take it that staff does not approve of this project because it's proposing noadditional density . and under the zoning they can have up to nine. and you're not okay with zero. itake it you'd be okay with nine . how do we know where in the interim the project sponsor could land with staff approval because the ordinance doesn't create a mandatory minimumof
nine . it just uses the standard conditional use criteria and given where he was, where the owner was in the process, i'm curious as to what they can come back to you. what guidance can you propose to them. i'm feeling very uncomfortable about the fact that they were very far along in the process even if it's not grandfathered that the surrounding houses on the block are approximatelyit looks like some early size and we are not telling them what would be acceptable . >> thank you commissioner diamond. a couple responses to that. number one there's two facetsto the interim legislation . there's an expectation that residential expansion projects or construction tried to achieve maximize density or achieve close to maximum density but there's also the component that speaks to and it's a bit overlapping where
there is a component that speaks to creation of very large unitsor expansion of very large units . already existing large units i think our recommendation is really more on the latter. not every single-family residentialexpansion is going to be able to maximize density necessarily . singularly solve our housing affordability issues but certainly in the context of the legislation which is established in 2000 square-foot threshold for review we're talking about home again that measured over 3000 square feet currently. and would expand to over 5000 squarefeet with this . >> which are different than the numbers you provided so what accounts for the discrepancy? >> the project sponsor is referring to the conditioned space excluding certain areas such as the garage and storage areas and thingslike that that aren't really taken into account in our planning code .
we measure square footage as defined in the planning code . >> but i'm still not sure what guidance you're getting projec sponsor as to what would be acceptable from the staff perspective . >> to get to the otherpart of your question , there isn't necessarily, this is my understanding and my recollection this is the first example of a project that's before your consideration under these interim controls . and the interim controls donot as you noted do not include any specific criteria .for staff to consider or for the commission toconsider as to what appropriate minimum might be . i think the notion of the interim legislation was to give really you as commissioners the discussion to weigh the intent of those controls against a conditional ace conditional us objectives and policies of the general plan . so again our recommendation for this particular case is less probably on the there aren't
enough units in this particular proposal aspect of legislation and more looking at the creation of a very large unit compared to what's already considered an existing large unit over 2000 square feet by the interim controls at the threshold of 2000 square feet as being an item for your consideration. >> i still have the same question then. let's say that motion is turned down today. you don't like the fact or the commission doesn't like the fact that it requires expansion. what size expansion would be required? you're basing the recommendation on the fact it's too large project but what size would be okay? >> if i may commissioner diamond. >> could you speak a little louder? claudia now saul, planning staff.
i wanted to chime in here. i think when this was initially proposed as part of the interim legislation that did the supervisor's office and request we get more quantitative criteria we can weigh in on and you know, such as it is this is what we have before us. i think this is an opportunity for the commission to weigh in and come up with some criteria that they believe would help guide any future applications that come before them. so that's when and if these controls become permanent, staff has something that is a little bit more solid and that you would feel morecomfortable with . >> i'll be curious to see what the other commissioners have to say. i would say i'm very uncomfortable with this process
and it is, but on the other hand i wish that the project sponsor and come forward with at least one other unit and an edu that you guys could have supported. to me that's what have been a reasonable proposal on his part based upon our past actions. but the interim legislation is so lacking in detail that it is a process that feels like we could come up with a different answer every time and therefore it lacks consistency andthat is very problematic for me i am curious to see how the other commissioners respond . >> in response to commissioner diamond's observation i'd like to add that the legislation that virginia responded to in
the area two or three blocks up from thisparticular project site, this is a project in our three . and the surrounding density of apartment primary apartment buildings by far exceeds what this particular single-family 1953 design building does relative to all surrounding buildings. and i think the legislation fully addresses designing and context and was designing in context not really thought out excessively large single-family enlargements but indeed reverts to a more modest response to what the condition is and those are primarily apartments that range from 800 233 which is a predominant pattern and not do something which recommends an offset in the balance of what's
being offered this is on the edge of chinatown and it's surrounded by a modest home and this particular enlargement i think would push it away over the edge which is kind of like 1950 session. we want to bring this into the 21st century and for that reason i think as large as it currently is i don't think it requires any guidance because the guidance is implied in the internal legislation really focusing on the existing what is rather than wishful thinking of somebody wanting to not only double almost triple what they have. i'm in the strong support of thedesign and context . i would be concerned this enlargement would have an impact on the adjoining
incredibly important community facility to the east of it. ithink it would cast shadow . it would be basically looming over the few open spaces that are in use by the community for basketball and outdoor play activity with community centers at the corner building and for that reason i am basically in support of staffrecommendation . >> responding to commissioner warren to commissioner diamond i would wonder if commissioner moore, my feelings are more in line with commissioner moore in supporting the recommendation to deny but i would be open to continuing this project to be
revised to include additional units on site. i don't know if commissioner moore would be interested in that. commissioner diamond answer the question how many more. i thinkcertainly getting tonight i think would be probably a new building . i think that would be nine units within the existing building would be a significantly different piece of the property and contemplated by the current project sponsor but that's something i'd be open to considering and a time. this project has been in some form of review so i would be supportive of denying it in it current state . i recognize denial means they would have to startover in a years time or so . i want to be sensitive to the timing of those controls which overlap with the project as it was already wellunderway . so i'm just wondering if either commissioner diamond or moore
would be thinking about a continuance or adding 81 unit orto . i'm not sure what would be appropriate. >> jonas, quick question. if we motion intends to disapprove don't they get to come back and kind of had to have a second shot at presenting a second project fo no ? >> there is commission president koppel but motions of intent are primarily designed to allow for example if the motion for the preliminary recommendation before you was to prove the provision to allow staff to go and draft appropriate measures of disapproval with the appropriate findings for you. not to say you couldn't do that here, motion of intent to disapprove but you're indicating that there will be disapproval that may be the
appropriate course of action here if the respondent chooses not to alter their project it would be satisfactory to the planning commission but i think to commissioner tanner! i think a motion of continuance would be fine. >> commissioner moore. >> given what we've spent four hours on today and looking at sensitive contextual densification of the city i think this project is already in its current condition and abnormality because this project would not be sent back if we continue to add a adu it would still be an excessively large project . adu would not address the possibility for its density. i'm not in supportof it . i believe it runs counter to the thoughtful considerations
on faith-based densification and tries to address that for thisparticular project . i would support the staff recommendation to deny . >> president: did you have any comments ? >> i think we should probably ask the project sponsor but regardless they would need to come before you if they wanted to expand their building. i think if there is interest in them reducing the sizeof the addition , is that something they are amenable to ? i would ask the commission in terms of what they would like them toreduce , what would be something that is tolerable to
them and i do think the comments from commissioner more about context are really important . it'san important point in the interim legislation . >> i will also add commissioners that if the direction is disapproval today that prevents the project sponsor from coming back with a light project within a years time. if they were to alter the project and reduce the bulk en masse and add units in some fashion that would be a significantly different project that would not prevent them from submitting a new application . >> i do want to add that this is, there's been public comment about this as well.this is somewhat of an uncomfortable position to be in in that not everybody wants to become a landlord .and so this is the decision that we are sort of implicating that they would
need to speak on the landlord. a couple of the questions that i have health commission is are we saying we do want them to add density or would it be sufficient enough to reduce the size of the addition and there we go. >>president: commissioner imperial . >> thank you for all the comments and in your comments for now i do support the decision, the disapproval of this project and i do think that for us in the commission if we want to reduce it then we have to be veryspecific . i do think that the project sponsor can come back and propose another if they would liketo add another unit . but i think from the conversation that we've been having today to in terms of the again, the homeowner being a landlord and adding an 80 you.
the local 80 you program i think it can be where the discussions lead to. . so if i would like to make a motion to disapprove this project. >> i second that motion. >> anything else. >> wanted to bring to commission's attention that while the drawings are legal preliminary for construction the current drawings that we would continue it we would approve it for we would whatever is not sufficient to the ability to really be considered because the dimension trains between existing and proposed and among the different forms are very unstable. the building of the proposed is two inches larger.
the building existing is larger than proposed. it is the dimensions don't even hold from one to the other. that is of concern because that potentially could mean somebody wants to demolish the entire building because the dimensions areinaccurate so i'll just bring that up to your attention only to also reflect on that . >>. commissioners. if there's nothing further there's a motion to disapprove thisproject . on that motion commissioner tanner. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] so moved commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 1 with commissioner diamond voting against that will place us on items 18 a and b or case number 2019 -013808
cu aba are for and 17th street. commissioners you will consider a conditional use authorization and the administrator will consider the request for variance but note in our november 19 2020 after hearing closing public comment this matterwas continued . and therefore there will be reduced time for the project sponsor andmembers of the public for their comments . mister moore are youprepared to make a presentation . >>i am commission secretary . >> good evening president. members of the commissionand zoning administrator jeff warren planning staff . adam before he was a request for conditional use authorization for the corona heights special large residence special used district and the
request for variances on thelot and rh to and a 40 x district . item was heard by the commission and zoning administrator november 19, 2020 and after hearing public comment and discussion the commission continue the item provided feedback on design of the proposal with recommendations for the project to be modified to scale and building typology that increases the density up on the site but within a building that would be in greater compliance and less impactful to the open space and maintain adjacent properties access to the air. the administrator continued the case as well as a refresher the project type is a corner lot locatedon the northwest side of the intersection of 17th and moore street . the project is a 2916 square foot corner lot with 36 feet of frontage on orange streetand 85 feet on 17th street . the two-family dwelling occupies the half of the
subject lot and has a depth of 40 feet six inches providing a really hard to 50 percent of the lot. at the ground-floor there's existing office and storage area that has no internal connection of the existing dwelling units. the project before you today proposes to construct a new 3128 gross square foot three-story two-family dwelling on a new 1458 square foot lot. this new lot would be created through a subdivision of the existing lot as described. the building would contain a 1139 where for two bedroom unit at the ground-floor and in 1000 400 foot two-bedroom unit within the upper two floors. open space would be provided a secondfloor deck at the rear of the building and at third floor roof deck . an accessory dwelling unit is
proposed to be added at the ground-floor of the existing two-family dwelling at 17th street and the sponsor seeks to voluntarily designate the proposed edu as an on-site inclusionary housing unit . the new roof deck is proposed on the existing building to provide common use of open spaces . procedurally project seeks conditional use for the corona heights special used district to construct a new building that exceeds 3000 gross square feet and carried on the proposed lot that both locks seek authorization to provide development that results in a rearguard less than 45 percent of total lot . with each building proposed to reach a depth equal to their property line. additionally each of the proposed lot require a variance to the minimum lot size control in section 121 to allow the proposed decision and both locks seek a variance to the 45 percent of what you requirements for the district. since last year's continuance and while working with department staff on design
proposals to sponsor revised the project for a reduced scope asking before you today the following is a highlight of changes made from the project originally presented to the planning commission and zoning administrator . these include a removal of the fourth floor resulting in a reduction of the height of the building from three feet to 30 feet . at the proposed lot rearguard line the second and third floor would provide 12 aspects of the proposed lot western side property line the first floor would provide a five foot setback the second and third floor would provide a three foot setback.the total area of the building is reduced from 5000and 42 square feet to 3128 square feet . the proposed one vehicle garage and unprofitable accessory dwellingunit were removed from the scope . and the project would now provide compliant usable open space and no longer seeks a variance to the control deception 135.
with these changes made to the scale and amassing of the proposed building it would not consideration the request variance the department finds the revised projects generates response appropriately to the context of the adjacent properties and in a manner that's overall consistent with development patterns of many residential corner lots throughout the city. the reduction in height and appropriation of setbacks reduce the intensity of the project scale with respect to mid lot open space and access to light and air. prior to the projects first hearing that hearing and prior to today's hearingthe department received substantial total of public testimony and comment in support and in opposition to the project . since the neighborhood notification for the revised project this past august the department hasreceived 85 comments, emails in opposition to the project and 35 letters in support .
the support of the project is centered on the addition of housing units and addition of affordable units . opposition is entered on the projects noncompliance with the planning code or corona heights large units. overall the department finds the project is on balance consistent with the corona heights large residence and policies of the general plan and further a priority is to maximize the development of housing units that can be reasonably accommodated under the site zoning while maintaining quality of life to applicable standards. the department finds the department response to the property and in a manner that is overall consistent with development patterns of throughout the city. the department finds the project is necessary, desirable and compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and not to be dental mental to personsor adjacent properties . thisconcludes my presentation
and i'm available for any questions . >> president: are you prepared to make your presentation? >> i am. >> you have three minutes. >> members of the commission, zoning administrator t and congratulations tothe former da sanchez . you for the opportunity to present my project today. last november i shared an idea that i had and the first of its kind small-scale mixed affordable housing project that has two units with market rate housing two unitsof deed restricted below market rate affordable housing . >> thank you jeff. the planning department adopted my original design was consistent and recommended against it but after a lengthy
discussion decided to continue rather than designthe application and provided a roadmap . the sign you see here summarizes the many changes that were made to significantly downsized the design. the entire portfolio was removed to the back of the building to stimulate a 12 edr mind all of these changes reduced from 2900 square feet. commissioners you asked me to work with the department to find a middle path. and then you just heard senior planner jeffrey hornsby give us that. yet despite the dramatic reduction in school and now support from the planning department there are who remain opposed to building this or any housing. and they'll tell you they're not just opposed to new housing projects and certainly not affordable housing or just opposed to this particular affordable housing project and ithappens to be close to their home. let me share what is happening .
albeit modest in size is worthy of approval. for the last 10 years population of household income has increased dramatically and the funding decreased over that same time. in terms of overall units and agreements. more people and moremoney combined with the shrinking housing requirements predictably own values and rents have exploded . this is from homeowners and landlords actively work to constrain supply housing and a handful you will hear from today. this is very bad news for those who live in this neighborhood including disproportionately people of color, those of limited or fixed incomes and those in working-class professions such as teachers firefighters and other staff. it is of course well within your discussion to deal with this affordable housing project ." heights has continued to gentrify and will remain downtown. however the good news for those affordable housing is that they
will enable an option and an idea that commissioner diamond actually had. my strong preference isoption a, revised design before you today . the alternative option be is attached to bedroom square foot accessory and constructed in the rear corner, and no affordable housing or open space. if the state provides a path o least resistance , ministerial he. this is an empty lot and in the not-too-distantfuture there will be a new home here . the only question is how many families living inside one family were three families including families selected by the office . thank you very much for your time. >> commissioners may have additionalquestions . once public comment is concluded, mister holtzman i'm looking for yourown number . i donot see the one you provided . i take that back. we do have organized oppositio
. there will be reported three minutes together to give a brief speaker as wouldany other member of the public . they are set on one minute intervalsfor three speakers. mister holtzmanare you with us ? >> i am . >> bring up the slides please. >> president: they are up. >> i don't see them on my end. anyway, let me just go through this. as the first slide indicates you are the corbin heights neighborsassociation . next slide please. we've been around for a number of years and we've had a particular focus on land use and as these addresses indicate we have worked on a number of sites and it has always come to acompromise. in this case however , the no one ever dared to try to knock down an entire backyard .
so next slide please. i better move ahead. i do want to warn people i guess those slides are goofed up on what i want to warn people is they should not fall for the bad cop versus good cop. the first proposal was a bad proposal.they bypassed the planning department and turned down by multiple entities. the good cop is an attempt to revitalize that butwith minimal changes. it sets a dangerous precedent for backyard and it is zoning at its worst . if you look at the ... >> we need to hear from your nextspeaker now . >> okay. >> i'm mary and joseph and vice president of corbett heights neighbors i've lived one block from the proposed project for many years . my immediate neighbors and then
supervisor warner were instrumental in getting corona heights special use district past the law is still in effect and noreason at all was given by the department to ignore or waive the requirements of the special use district . most importantly there are absolutely no assurances that the proposed units will go to residents and are lower moderate incomes san francisco residents rather than to an out-of-town visitor. the respondent has short-term rental in one of his units now as the project is contemplated the sponsor andsuccessors may charge migrants rate to anyone on all but one of the five proposed units . the department pointed out and recommended oneyear ago there was a method which complied with the corona heights special use district through which
additionalunits could be constructed . patient was not accepted and there appears to be no good reason why the department does not insist on that method being used to add more units .>> are going to have to go to your third speaker. >> commissioners my name is paul allen, secretary corbett heights neighbors and as marianne has indicated there is no legally enforceable obligation that the two units in the new building will be affordable or even to ensure theyare not made available to nonresidents has short-term rentals . in short there is a myth of affordability which surrounds thisproject. more importantly , the department one year ago recommended against approvalfor this particular project . now it executes a 180 degrees here let recommending approval apparently because the second floor is somehow set back about 12 feet but that does not justify abandoning the 40
percent requirement. all we have is an excavated pronouncement of compliance . no rationale, no transparency. in addition this project would not even meet the standards of the four unit legislation about which you heard earlier today. inshort the conclusion shouldbe the same as a year ago . denial . >> that concludes organized opposition. members of the public . [inaudible] >> and i on? >> president: you are on. >> i heard three announcements. good evening commissioners. this is san francisco land use coalition. while we commend mister
polluter by restricting thedeed to affordable housing , the scale of this project is still menacing to the surrounding neighbors. and surely there could be some compromise reached where mister hudak can still have to affordable units from this project and have a scale that is not going to be amended to the neighbors. that's why we would like to urge the commission to ask mister putin to redesign the project so it will not be a menace in terms of its scale and would not deprive the neighbors from light and privacy but again, providing the two affordable units is commendable but at the same time we have to keep in mind there are other people that live in this neighborhood so please consider asking the project sponsor to redesign the project so it would be more in the scale that we have in that neighborhood.
thank you . >> i'm brad wyman, i live in t3 forcorbett avenue . left over from this property. i was cannot comment now? >> president: your time is running. >> the unit creates an additional units although it's like putting up one wall of sheet rock in a garage is what is proposed there. it is substandard housing so to make that affordable housing is sort of an insult. so this new building i will create any additional rental units. and this all project puts the two rule, when the sponsor bought the property there was too raw long-term tenants there
and it puts both ofthem risk or displacement as its displaced one of them and willlikely displace the other one . if the bond is separated as planned . because that old building will be sold to somebody and in our neighborhood, the owners will move into that's unit which is where our duties 12 your tenants can live and we will have another displacedtenants . so for a whole project that was all about housing ... >> members of the public, last callfor public comment . you have one minute. go ahead taller. >> my name is lauren struggle and i live at 270 state street. i'm calling to express my opposition to this proposal and in 2016 are then supervisor sponsor the interim controls
and sites overwhelming support for his constituents and this legislation was renewed and codified at the growing heights large residence specialty use district which you all know. i just want to point out a couple of things. ftd promotes housing in a sensible and inclusive manner and our neighborhood was able to add compatible multi-use buildings rather than single-story and also since it was enacted in 2017 it's slightly popular and reflects the current unit that embraces housing. so there's nothing obsolete if you're ecstatic about this, i don't believe this proposal is for special usedistricts and thank you so much for listening .
>> zoning administrator myname is dirk i winter, i live on the same block asthe project . i opposed the current design , to architects and independently determined the same exact number of housing units could be built in a matter of his in close even with our suv and would be less impactful on the neighbors. the friendly agent at the planning counter even sketched it out for me in five minutes. it shows the same number of units as the current proposal, more affordability and it's ignored. why is the noncompliance project in front of you once again when 50 housing options exist but have not been considered. unfortunately the developers seek communicating with me so i related information to the planning department last september. pleasedeny this application an direct them to cope come back with an compliance project that we can support . thank you .
>> caller: my name is eric murphy, owner of 17th street directly adjacent to the4300 19th street property . i'm calling to express my opposition tothis proposal . the 20/20 here in the zoning administrator explained that variances are intended for extraordinary circumstances. that will arise from a subject property in itself and they determined this site is a standard property that presents compliance ways of housing. further variance cannot be granted if itreclassifies the zoning of the property . lastly the proposed subdivision would create two substandard lots with no rear yards all. all these issues were highlighted at the last hearing and none have been adequately addressed in the proposal . it's none of this has changed
meaningfully variances are still not justified andshould be denied. project sponsor should be directed to work on a compliance project . thank you. >> caller: my name is roz and i live at 90 orange street with my husband and young son and we lived next doorto this property . the hearing considered diamond stated i think it makes a great deal of sense to have affordability time together on a corner lot at a policy level ist so we canimplement it with consistency and predictability . commissioners, we agree. we purchased our home less than a year ago and all we knew the 17th street was in the works ourexpectation was it would only move forward as a code compliant project .even visor mandelman's proposal this development does not need the
steps setback stipulations there.[inaudible] >> president: i'm sorry but you'vebroken up on us there . >> caller: my name is sonia, and i'm calling to express my opposition to thisproposal . at the last hearing you had directors respond to specific setup issues and unfortunately thesame exact concerns still apply today less housing, no rear yard open space . no affordability, no hardship . zoning reclassification and on top of this we have learned the same exact number of housing units can be created in a code
compliant and sensible manner but the developer is unwilling to do so. over 200 real neighbors of both the current design if they want to seea more reasonable housing project . please deny the cu and variance applications and direct the developer to come back with a code compliant project that can support. >> hello commissioners, my name is tim wu and i'm a neighbor in the area. i have doubts about the mixed affordable housingtrend . and for that reason i oppose it. 15 crisis ads show 4000 a month fortwo-bedroom slacks and existing buildings our neighborhood . those sponsors daily. the injury rate is in that range. since new constructionexpects to be closer to 5000 , this project is probably worth 7 million for square footage
price. how would this work is this affordable. time and again we see the homes as senior citizens, neighbors and students staffed by speculators to turn its modest homes to like this one. do not assess the blame on the people who live here and help us shape better and more inclusive project that benefits everyone so we can extend these benefits to work. >> i'm the next door neighbor to the proposed development and i'm cautious about new development andincreased density because i don't think it will help lower and middle income residents without residency requirements . in this situation all previous discussions aboutaffordability team to be out the window. where does this three below-market rental units go ? how does the project consider mixed affordable with onereal affordable unit . a tiny converted garage. what happened to the racial equity issue the developer pushed last commission meeting
. how do we know for sure the market rate units will be rented as real housing not short-term rentals as one of his existing units is in the existing building is now the bottom line is that this absurd proposal does not confront the current zoning and future proposedzoning with regards to setbacks . there are better alternatives for the neighbors and neighborhood and 200 of my fellow neighbors agree . >> caller: my name is greg rando and i lived next door to the proposed units at the two 86. i do support housing but the current proposal adversely impacts are like air and privacy the zoning laws were designed to prevent this type of development . the variances are granted, what's thepoint of having zoning laws ? we could have worked out a reasonable compromise in the
existing your yard but it caused the developers to see cease communicating with us and we had no opportunity to pride input to the plan at the developer is providing only one adu to justify the market rate and as a result we have no other choice than to ask the variances be requested be denied. the developer should file a ne application for a code compliant project and make a genuine effort to work with the neighborhood . >> caller: good evening commissioners. my name is mariah hutchins and i live at 47 live on street in corona heights . i oppose this proposal. our fud reinforces rear yard requirements that are codified in addition the last paragraph prevents the predatory subdivision frontages. this demonstrates that
protections also apply outside the mid-block. ironically the sponsors airbnb quotes a huge backyard as a desirable feature and highlights pictures of birds and treesit serves him well at in terms of livability and as a airbnb . i asked you denied this application and asked the developer to come back with a code compliant project. i support housing andespecially affordable housing.thank you for your time, i know it's been a long evening . >> caller: my name is susie drought and i live at 260 state street in ourspecial use district . i'm calling to express my opposition to this proposal. we've had all the support emails that the planning department received out of 79 statements only 15 provided a zip code in the special use
district. our residents from the south they east coast relevant to the san francisco planning commission. i contrast the opposition consists of more than 200 san franciscans of which over 170 are real district constituents who live in our special use district. the project only deserves a conditional use authorization ifit's necessary or desirable for the neighborhood or community . we are the neighborhood and community and the 200+ proponents have a vested interest inthis project. please take them into account as you hear this testimony . you for your time. >> caller: my name is leslie and i live on corbett avenue. i oppose this proposal.
at the 2020 hearing you didn't directed the developer on density, affordability and equity in a code compliant manner. how has he responded? density was reduced from 6 to 5 units. the number of adu'swere cut in half and it represents 20 percent of core area and meanwhile the market rate units has increased . the current proposal has rear yard open space. >>. [please stand by]